Allowed

Geetha.S.Nair v. Sivan Nair and Others

Kerala HC13 Nov 2013MACA/71/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal sought enhancement of motor accident compensation. The High Court enhanced damages for loss of earnings, amenities, and ancillary expenses, corrected the loss of earning capacity calculation, and ordered interest to accrue from the original claim date despite respondent impleadment delay.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 32,200/- awarded; interest to accrue from date of claim petition; deposit ordered within two months.

Geetha.S.Nair Vs Sivan Nair and Others — 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 &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/22ND KARTHIKA, 1935

¶6

MACA.No. 71 of 2011

¶7

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 899/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 25-01-2010

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶9

GEETHA S. NAIR, W/O. SIVAN NAIR, GEETHALAYAM, CHITTETHUKARA, CSEZ.P.O KAKKANADU.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. SIVAN NAIR, S/O. RAMAN NAIR, GEETHALAYAM, CHITTETHUKARA, CSEZ.P.O KAKKANADU.

¶13

2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, IST FLOOR,

¶14

CHANDRIKA BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM KOCHI -11.

¶15

3. DEVASSY, S/O. OUSOM, MARATHONTHARA HOUSE, NEAR NAYARAMBALAM BRIDGE NAYARAMBALAM.

¶16

4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

R2 BY ADV. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA R4 BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC SRI.SREEPRAKASH K.NAIR, SC, KSRTC

¶18

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

shg/

¶20

S.SIRI JAGAN & K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶21

M.A.C.A No.71 of 2011

¶22

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

¶23

Dated this the 13^th day of November, 2013

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

S. Siri Jagan, J .

¶26

The claimant in O.P.(MV) No.899/2005 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur, is the appellant herein. She suffered injuries in an accident caused by the negligent driving of two vehicles of which the owners, drivers and insurance company are the respondents herein. She claimed compensation for the injuries and consequent disabilities suffered by her in the accident. The Tribunal found that both vehicles were equally negligent in causing the accident and apportioned the negligence at the rate of 50:50. Thereafter the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,14,840/- under various heads as follows:

¶27

Loss of earnings	: Rs.8,000/-
Pain and suffering	: Rs.35,000/-
Treatment expenses	: Rs.92,640/-
Transport to hospital	: Rs.3,000/-
Compensation for permanent disability	: Rs.61,200/-
Loss of amenities	: Rs.15,000/-
Total	: Rs.2,14,840/-

¶28

M.A.C.A No.71 of 2011

¶29

-2-

¶30

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The accident was on 12.9.2005 and the appellant was a 44 year old seamstress at that time. She claimed that she was earning a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. In the absence of any evidence to prove the income or avocation, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income notionally as Rs.2,000/-. According to the counsel for the appellant, it is on the lower side. It is further submitted that although the appellant was hospitalised for 43 days, no amount was awarded for bystander's expenses, extra nourishment and damage to clothing. The counsel for the appellant points out that the disability certificate certified 17% disability, which has been accepted by the Tribunal for calculating loss of earning capacity, despite which the compensation awarded for loss of amenities is only Rs.15,000/- which is also on the lower side. It is also submitted that the compensation for pain and sufferings of Rs.35,000/- is also on the lower side.

¶31

M.A.C.A No.71 of 2011

¶32

-3-

¶33

We have heard the counsel for the insurance

¶34

company also, who would argue that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper.

¶35

We have considered the rival contentions.

¶36

Although the appellant had not adduced any acceptable evidence regarding her avocation or income, taking into account the fact that the accident was in the year 2005, we are inclined to fix the income as Rs.2,500/instead of Rs.2,000/-. The appellant is entitled to get compensation for loss of earnings for four months which would come to Rs.10,000/- at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month. But the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.8,000/-. The proper multiplier for a 44 year old person is 14 and not 15 as adopted by the Tribunal. For 17% disability, the appellant would be entitled to get compensation for loss of earning capacity at Rs.71,400/- (2500 x 12 x 14 x 17%) instead of Rs.61,200/. Difference would be Rs.10,200/-. Considering the difficulties of the appellant on account of the disability which would affect her personal life to

¶37

M.A.C.A No.71 of 2011

¶38

-4-

¶39

considerable extent, we are inclined to enhance the compensation for loss of amenities to Rs.25,000/- from Rs.15,000/-. For extra nourishment, bystander's expenses and damage to clothing, we award Rs.10,000/-. We are not inclined to enhance compensation under the other heads, since we feel that just and proper compensation has been awarded under those heads. Altogether the appellant would be entitled to get Rs.32,200/- as additional compensation over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal. This amount would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till date of payment.

¶40

We find that on the ground that there was delay in impleading the K.S.R.T.C. as respondent in the claim petition, the Tribunal restricted the interest payable by the K.S.R.T.C. only with effect from 22.7.2009. Since the impleadment would take effect from the original date of the claim itself, we delete that part of the award whereby the interest awarded by the Tribunal is restricted from 22.7.2009. That interest will also accrue from the date of

¶41

M.A.C.A No.71 of 2011

¶42

-5-

¶43

the claim petition. The additional amount at the rate of interest fixed by us shall be deposited by the second and fourth respondents in equal shares within two months. Within that time the K.S.R.T.C shall deposit the balance interest on the amount payable by them, at the rate fixed by the Tribunal, also.

¶44

Wit the above modification of the impugned award, the appeal is disposed of.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶49

Shg/

Geetha.S.Nair v. Sivan Nair and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geetha.S.Nair v. Sivan Nair and Others

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

Kesavadasan K.K Vs T.R.Sikhilegan

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs K.K.Chandran

Mohammed Abdulla Rifayath C.H (Minor) Vs Mohammed Sajid

Regional Director, Esi Corpn. Vs Rachel Mathew

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Anilesh

John Joseph Vs Abraham