Partly allowed

Newton Simethy v. P.K.Vincent

Kerala HC28 Jan 2014MACA/1084/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court appealed against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award where the quantum of compensation was found insufficient. The court enhanced the claimant's monthly income and increased compensation for loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, granting an additional Rs. 29,880.

What did the court decide?

Entitlement to additional compensation of Rs. 29,880/- with 9% interest from the date of filing the petition.

Newton Simethy Vs P.K.Vincent — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/8TH MAGHA, 1935 MACA.No. 1084 of 2006 ( ) --------------------------

¶5

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1565/2000 of MACT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 29-10-2005

¶6

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶7

NEWTON SIMETHY, S/O.ANTONY SIMETHY, KAVALAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KADUKUTTY P.O. MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

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

¶9

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

P.K. VINCENT, S/O. KOCHAGUSTHY PADINJAREVEETTIL HOUSE, KADUKUTTY P.O.

¶11

LALAN KARAMU, S/O. AUGUSTINE KARAMU PUTHANPURAKKAL HOUSE, KADUKUTTY P.O. (DELETED )

¶12

MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., MANAPATT BUILDINGS, NORTH NADA, KODUNGALLUR.

¶13

R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE

¶14

(RESPONDENT NO.2 IOS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 1/1/2014 IN I.A.NO.3288/13 IN MACA.NO.1084/2006)

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

HARUN-UL-RASHID & ALEXANDER THOMAS,JJ.

¶17

M.A.C.A. NO. 1084 OF 2006

¶18

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.

¶21

Claimant in O.P.(MV).No.1565/2000 is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29/10/2005 in O.P.(MV).No.1565/2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition allowing the claimant to realise a sum of `57,911/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition i.e. on 28/11/2000 upto the date of deposit with proportionate costs from the respondents. The quantum of compensation is under challenge. The parties are hereinafter referred to as the petitioner and

¶22

respondent as arrayed in the original petition.

¶23

The date of accident was on 3/2/1999. Petitioner is a

¶24

driver by profession. According to the him, he is getting monthly

¶25

-2-

¶26

M.A.C.A.NO.1084/2006

¶27

income at the rate of 4,000/-. Petitioner failed to produce any reliable evidence to establish his monthly income. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the petitioner at the rate of 1,500/-. Petitioner sustained injuries such as fracture both bones left leg above ankle, fracture little toe left leg and lacerated wound left foot and fracture malleolus. Ext.A8 is the accident register cum wound certificate which shows that the petitioner sustained the injuries. Ext.P9 is a copy of the discharge summary and Ext.A11 is the X- ray. The said documents show that the petitioner sustained fracture injuries. PW1 is the doctor, who issued disability certificate. The doctor assessed 11% permanent disability. Petitioner sustained functional disabilities. It is not disputed that he is having difficulty to climb up and getting down steps for brisk walking, to take quick streps to sprint to run and to jump, for prolonged walking and prolonged standing, to do manual labour. Petitioner was treated as inpatient for 17 days. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is contended that the compensation awarded as `57,911/- is grossly

¶28

M.A.C.A.NO.1084/2006

¶29

-3-

¶30

inadequate.

¶31

Considering the fact that the petitioner is driver by

¶32

profession fixing of monthly income as 1,500/- is on the lower side. Hence, we fix the monthly income of the petitioner as 2,500/-. Petitioner is therefore entitled to additional compensation of 3,000/- towards the loss of earning. For pain and suffering the Tribunal fixed a sum of 10,000/-. In the light of the fact that the petitioner sustained serious injuries as noticed above, that he was treated as inpatient in the hospital for 17 days and that he has sustained functional disabilities, we are of the view that the compensation awarded for pain and suffering as 10,000/- is too low and on the lower side. Hence, we fix the compensation as 15,000/- under the said head. For loss of amenities and happiness in life, the Tribunal fixed only 3,000/-. Considering the disability the petitioner sustained and considering the future permanent disability, we fix the compensation as 10,000/- towards the loss of amenities and happiness in life. Deducting 3,000/- the petitioner is

¶33

-4-

¶34

M.A.C.A.NO.1084/2006

¶35

entitled to additional compensation of 7,000/-. Taking into account the monthly income fixed as 2,500/- the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of 40,800/- (2500x12x18% x17) towards compensation for permanent disability. Hence, altogether the appellant/petitioner is entitled to get a sum of 29,880/- as additional compensation.

¶36

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is entitled to realise additional compensation of `29,880/- with 9% interest from the date of filing the petition i.e. on 28/11/2000 upto the date of deposit. The 3^rd respondent shall deposit the said amount within a period of two months. No order as to costs.

¶37

HARUN-UL-RASHID,

¶38

Judge.

¶39

ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.

¶40

kcv.

Newton Simethy v. P.K.Vincent

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Newton Simethy v. P.K.Vincent

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

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Baiju

Mathukutty T.Thomas Vs Merisha Joseph

State of Kerala Vs Sheela John

Shaiju Vs Girija Vallabhan.P.K.

Raju a Fernandes Vs Vijimol Vincent