Partly allowed

Abu Fasil v. K.K.Vijayakumar

Kerala HC4 Apr 2013MACA/574/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident claims appeal, the High Court upheld the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's assessment of compensation despite serious injuries sustained by the appellant. The Court found the Tribunal's calculation liberal and declined to enhance the award, but importantly directed the insurance company to pay an additional sum of Rs. 25,000 for loss of amenities. The Court also noted the ap

What did the court decide?

Awarded Rs. 25,000 with interest at 9% p.a. for loss of amenities; appeal otherwise dismissed.

Abu Fasil Vs K.K.Vijayakumar — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/14TH CHAITHRA 1935

¶5

MACA.No. 574 of 2013 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV.247/2005 of MACT VADAKARA DATED 12-11-2008

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

ABU FASIL

¶9

S/O.SUBAIR, ADHIKARI VEETTIL, A.V HOUSE MELADI POST, KILOOR, KOZHIKODE.

¶10

BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. K.K.VIJAYAKUMAR S/O.VIJAYAN, KUNIYIL HOUSE, P.O AZHIYOOOR VATAKARA PIN 673 564.

¶13

2. C.SIVADASAN S/O.PARAMASIVAN, AMMACHERI HOUSE, P.O OLAVILAM CHOCKLY, KANNOOR, PIN 670 672.

¶14

3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO, LTD BRANCH OFFICE, KALLINGAL BUILDING, MAIN ROAD VADAKARA, PIN 673 101.

¶15

R3 BY SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

S.SIRI JAGAN & BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.

¶18

================== M.A.C.A.No. 574 of 2013

¶19

==================

¶20

Dated this the 4^th day of April, 2013 J U D G M E N T

¶21

Siri Jagan, J

¶22

The appellant is the claimant in O.P.(M.V).No.247/2005 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vadakara. He suffered injuries and consequent disability in an accident caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle owned by the 1^st respondent, driven by the 2^nd respondent and insured with the 3^rd respondent. He sought compensation for the injuries and consequent disability suffered by him on account of the accident. After finding negligence on the part of the 2^nd respondent, the Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads as follows;

¶23

	Head of claim	Amount awarded `
1	Pain and suffering	30,000.00
2	Bystander's expenses & hospital expenses	26,200.00
3	Transport to hospital	10,000.00
4	Mental shock & agony	30,000.00
5	Loss of income	72,000.00
6	Disfiguration	10,000.00
7	Permanent disability	144,000.00
8	Medical bills	244,880.57
	Total (rounded to` 5,67,081/-)	567,080.57

¶24

M.A.C.A.574/13 - : 2 :-

¶25

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhanced compensation.

¶26

We have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company as well.

¶27

No doubt, the appellant has suffered very serious injuries and very serious disabilities including disfiguration as well. But still leaving aside the sympathies, which the appellant richly deserves, compensation can be awarded only on certain principles laid down by courts in the matter of assessing compensation. Going by those principles, we are unable to persuade ourselves to hold that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the compensation. In fact going by those principles, we find that the Tribunal was liberal in assessing the compensation. As such, in respect of the compensation awarded under the various heads considered by the Tribunal, we do not find any reason to enhance the same. But we find that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for loss of amenities in life. The appellant has been certified to have suffered 25% permanent disability. The disabilities are grave in nature as well. The same would, apart from affecting his loss of earning power, would certainly affect his personal life as well. Considering the fact that

¶28

M.A.C.A.574/13 - : 3 :-

¶29

he was only 20 years old at the time of the accident, we grant an

¶30

amount of ` 25,000/- as compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. This amount would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till date of payment. The 3^rd respondent insurance company is directed to

¶31

deposit that amount also within one month.

¶32

The appeal is disposed of as above.

¶33

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶34

Sd/sdk+ BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶35

///True copy///

¶36

P.A. to Judge

Abu Fasil v. K.K.Vijayakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abu Fasil v. K.K.Vijayakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs Palliyara Meethal Kumaran Vydiar

Krishnakumar Vs Prithvi Raj

State of Kerala Vs T.S. Yamuna

State of Kerala Vs Krishnan Nadar

Lissie Vs K.D.Kunjappan

Noushad, S/O. Muhammed Vs Ramakrishnan P.P.