Partly allowed

Merlin Davis v. P.R.Radhakrishnan

Kerala HC27 Nov 2013MACA/981/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a partial appeal regarding compensation to a minor accident victim. While disagreeing to enhance compensation for most heads, the Court applied Supreme Court guidelines to award an additional sum for loss of earning and amenities, totaling Rs. 81,600 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to deposit an additional compensation of Rs. 81,600 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition.

Merlin Davis Vs P.R.Radhakrishnan — 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 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶6

MACA.No. 981 of 2011

¶7

------------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)NO. 449/2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 31-01-2011

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶9

MERLIN DAVIS, AGED 13 YEARS (26.6.1994), D/O.DAVIS, MINOR REP. BY HER NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN FATHER DAVIS, VALAPPIL HOUSE, RESIDING AT IRAVIMANGALAM DESOM, NADATHARA VILLAGE, IRAVIMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR DIST.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

P.R.RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, (SUPERINTENDENT, NSS COLLEGE, NEMMARA), AMBADY, TM NAGAR, NALLEPILLY P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 553.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶14

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Kss

¶16

S.SIRI JAGAN & K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶17

M.A.C.A. No.981 of 2011

¶18

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

¶19

Dated this the 27^th day of November, 2013

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

S. Siri Jagan, J

¶22

The appellant suffered severe injuries in an accident on 25.3.2007, while she was a minor, aged 13 years. She filed O.P.(M.V)No.449/2007 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, claiming compensation for the injuries and consequent disabilities suffered by her in the accident caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle owned and driven by the respondent. The Tribunal after finding negligence on the part of the respondent, awarded compensation under various heads as follows:

¶23

Head of claim	Amount awarded
Loss of earning(Total)
Medical and miscellaneous expenses	37,229/-
By-stander expenses	1900/-
Transportation expenses	1000/-
Pain and suffering	13,000/-
Loss of disabilities	14,400/-
Loss of consortium
Loss of love and affection
Loss of estate

¶24

M.A.C.A. No.981 of 2011

¶25

-2-

¶26

Head of claim	Amount awarded
Loss of amenities and conveniences etc.	4,000/-
Total	71,529/-

¶27

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhanced compensation. The appellant contends that the Tribunal arbitrarily reduced the disability from 15% to 4% although the appellant produced Ext.A5 disability certificate, certifying 15% disability. She claims enhancement under all heads.

¶28

We have heard the parties.

¶29

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down guidelines for calculating compensation for permanent disability sustained by a child, in Master Mallikarjun v.

¶30

Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Co. Ltd &

¶31

Anr. [2013 (3) KLJ 815] . Going by the same, for disability up to 10%, the minimum amount to be awarded is Rs.1 lakh. The appellant produced Ext.A5 disability certificate which

¶32

M.A.C.A. No.981 of 2011

¶33

-3-

¶34

was only one issued by a private doctor, who had not been examined to prove the same. Therefore, we are not inclined to interferer with the Tribunal adopting only 4% for the purpose of calculating loss of earning capacity. But going by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned supra, the appellant is entitled to minimum one lakh rupees for loss of earning capacity and loss of the amenities together. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.14,400/- for loss of disability and Rs.4,000/- for loss of amenities and conveniences, the total of which should have been minimum of Rs.1 lakh. Therefore, deducting Rs.18,400/- from Rs.1,00,000/- due to the appellant, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra, the appellant would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.81,600/- 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 the claim petition till date of payment. Despite the persuasive arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant we are not inclined to enhance compensation

¶35

M.A.C.A. No.981 of 2011

¶36

-4-

¶37

under other heads. The respondent is directed to deposit this amount also within two months.

¶38

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

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶43

Shg/

Merlin Davis v. P.R.Radhakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Merlin Davis v. P.R.Radhakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Registrar,University of Calicut Vs Esi Corporation and Another

Binoj Antony Vs M/S New India Assurance Co.Ltd.

Santhosh Mathew Vs Ganeshan P. and Others

Martin George Vs the State of Kerala

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Madhu

The Proprietor, Burhani Industries Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.