Allowed

Muralikrishnan v. P.v.Siddique

Kerala HC19 Nov 2013MACA/585/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarding 3,46,692 INR for injuries sustained in a road accident, the High Court enhanced the compensation. The Court re-fixed monthly earning capacity and awarded additional compensation for loss of earnings during treatment, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of 2,80,000 INR granted with 9% interest from the date of claim petition.

Muralikrishnan Vs P.v.Siddique — 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 K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/28TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

MACA.No. 585 of 2011 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 1193/2007 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

MURALIKRISHNAN, S/O.SREEKUMARAN, AGED 30 YEARS, STATE BANK COLONY, HOUSE NO.3, CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. P.V.SIDDIQUE, S/O.VIJAYAN, PANANGADAN HOUSE, P.O.KANAKAMALA, TRICHUR - 680 001.

¶12

2. K.A.AJEESH, S/O.ARAVINDAKSHAN, AGED 24 YEARS, KUNDIL VEETTIL, VELLIKULANGARA VILLAGE, P.O.INJAKUNDU, TRICHUR - 680 001.

¶13

3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MAHESWARI BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, TRICHUR - 680 001.

¶14

R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶18

---------------------------------------------------------------------M.A.C.A.No. 585 of 2011

¶19

--------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 19^th day of November, 2013

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

K. Ramakrishnan, J

¶22

The claimant in O.P(M.V).No. 1193/2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, is the appellant herein. The appellant filed the application for compensation for the injuries and consequential disabilities suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident, caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the 2^nd respondent, owned by the first respondent and insured with the 3^rd respondent. After considering the evidence on record, the tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the vehicle, by the 2^nd respondent and awarded a total compensation of 3,46,692/- under various heads as₹ follows:

¶23

M.A.C.A.No. 585 of 2011

¶24

¶25

Sl. No.	Head of claim	Amount awarded₹
1	Loss of earning	60, 000
2	Transport to hospital	1, 500
3	Extra nourishment	1, 000
4	Damage to clothing and articles	1, 000
5	Treatment expenses	1, 35, 592
6	Bystander's expenses	3, 000
7	Pain and sufferings	15, 000
8	Permanent disability	1, 29, 600
	Total	3, 46, 692

¶26

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the appellant has filed this appeal before this court, claiming enhancement.

¶27

Heard the counsel for the appellant and counsel for the insurance company.

¶28

The counsel for the appellant submitted that, the appellant was working as 2^nd officer in Merchant Navy and getting a monthly income of 2,246/- U.S Dollars, which will come to 1,01,000/- Indian currency.₹ But the tribunal has taken only 10,000/- as his monthly₹ income, which is not correct. Further, on account of the injuries and treatment, he could not attend his work for 7

¶29

M.A.C.A.No. 585 of 2011

¶30

¶31

months, during the period of allotment that year and thereby, he lost the income during that period at the rate of 2,246/- U.S. Dollars and that ought to have been awarded by the tribunal under the head loss of earning. Further, if monthly income is taken on this basis, he is entitled to get enhancement under the head loss of earning capacity as well. No amount was awarded under the head loss of amenities in life. The amount awarded under the head pain and suffering is also on the lower side. So according to him, the appellant is entitled to get enhancement of all heads.

¶32

On the other hand, the counsel for the insurance company submitted that, there is no evidence to show that he was getting so much amount as his income and the tribunal was perfectly justified in such cases, notionally fixing his income as 10,000/- per₹ month. He has not lost his employment. No evidence adduced to prove that his future prospectus have been

¶33

M.A.C.A.No. 585 of 2011

¶34

¶35

affected on account of the disability as well. So under the circumstances, the total compensation awarded is just and proper and it is commensurate with the nature of injuries and disabilities alleged to have been suffered by him and no interference is called for at the hands of this court.

¶36

We have considered the rival contentions

¶37

of both parties in detail.

¶38

The case of the appellant was that, he was working as 2^nd officer in a Merchant Navy by name M/s. Elegant Marine Services Private Ltd., and he was getting 2,246/- U.S. Dollars per month as his income. In order to prove the same, he had produced Ext.A10 and also examined PW2 to prove this fact. But the tribunal did not accept Ext.A10, because it did not contain the signature of the person who issued the same. Further no documents have been produced to prove his actual income as well. But PW2 a co-officer, was examined and

¶39

M.A.C.A.No. 585 of 2011

¶40

¶41

he had deposed that the appellant was working in Elegant Marine Services as 2^nd Officer. So considering these aspects, the amount of 10,000/- taken by the tribunal as₹ his monthly income is on the lower side and we re-fix the same as 50,000/- per month. He could not go for his₹ work for six months. So he will be entitled to get ₹ 3,00,000/- as compensation under the head loss of earnings during the period of treatment instead of ₹ 60,000/- awarded by the tribunal. Considering the fact that he sustained fracture and treated as inpatient for 26 days and underwent surgeries as well, we feel that the amount of 15,000/- awarded by the tribunal under the₹ head pain and suffering is also on the lower side and we enhance the same to 25,000/-. He is aged only 30 years.₹ He suffered 6% disability. It is true that he did not lose his employment and he is still continuing in service. So, the tribunal was perfectly justified in taking ₹ 10,000/- per month for the purpose of assessing

¶42

M.A.C.A.No. 585 of 2011

¶43

¶44

compensation under the head permanent disability, taking 6% as his disability. Though, the multiplier taken is on the higher side, we are not inclined to reduce any amount under the head permanent disability awarded by the tribunal as notional monthly income alone is taken for the purpose. But it may have some impact on his personal life as well. No amount was awarded under the head, loss of amenities in life. So we award 30,000/- under₹ that head. Though persuasive arguments were made by the counsel for the appellant to enhance the compensation under other heads, we are not impressed by the same. We are not inclined to enhance any amount under other heads, as we feel that the amounts awarded under other heads are just and proper. In all, the appellant will be entitled to get additional compensation of 2,80,000/-, over and above what has been awarded by₹ the tribunal, which the 3^rd respondent insurance company is liable to pay with 9% interest per annum from the date

¶45

M.A.C.A.No. 585 of 2011

¶46

¶47

of the claim petition till date of payment. Two months time is granted to the insurance company to deposit this amount.

¶48

With the above modification of the impugned award of the tribunal, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

S. Siri Jagan, Judge

Sd/-

K. Ramakrishnan, Judge

¶53

// True Copy //

¶54

P.A. to Judge

¶55

Muralikrishnan v. P.v.Siddique

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muralikrishnan v. P.v.Siddique

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

Surjith.K Vs Kumnhimoyi and Others

Rubina Vs Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co.Ltd.

Raju a Fernandes Vs Vijimol Vincent

A.Rubeena Vs State of Kerala

Sleeba Paul Vs Unnikrishnan P.K. and Others

S.a.Velayudhan Vs Arjunan.K.L