Partly allowed

Deepak P.M. v. Kumara Pillai

Kerala HC9 Jun 2014MACA/1547/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident claims appeal, the High Court of Kerala set aside the Tribunal's award as unjust. The Court enhanced compensation under heads of pain and suffering, permanent disability, loss of amenities, and bystander expenses. The total additional compensation fixed is 84,520/- payable by the insurance company.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal's judgment and decree were modified to grant additional compensation of 84,520/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition.

Deepak P.M. Vs Kumara Pillai — Medical Negligence | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶5

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/19TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶6

MACA.No.1547 of 2011 (F)

¶7

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV).NO.2005/2004 of MACT, TRIVANDRUM DATED 09-12-2010

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶9

DEEPAK P.M., PADMANABHAN P.V., PPI/142, ANJALI, RAMATHERUVU PALLIKUNNU P.O., KANNUR, NOW RESIDING AT BABU NIVAS TC 16/1362, KANNETTUMUKKU, THYCAUD P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

KUMARA PILLAI S., M/S.SKP TIMBERS, TC 39/1828(1), NEAR BY PASS ROAD, MANACAUD P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002.

¶13

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE K N MATHEW BUILDING, GANDHARI AMMAN COIL ROAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002.

¶14

RETHI KUMARI, W/O.MOHAN KUMAR, T.C.39/2108, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002.

¶15

R2 BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

HARUN-UL-RASHID & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶18

M.A.C.A No.1547 Of 2011

¶19

Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2014.

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.

¶22

Claimant is the appellant. The appeal is directed against

¶23

the judgment and decree dated 9.12.2010 in O.P(MV). No.2005/2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. Compensation was claimed by the claimant on account of the injury sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 29.5.2004. On the fateful day, while he was travelling in an auto rickshaw, the offending crain lorry came in the opposite direction and hit on the auto rickshaw. The Tribunal decided the points in favour of the claimant and allowed him to realise 3,69,747/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation with cost of 1,500/- from the 2^nd respondent. The compensation amount includes medical expenses of ` 2,83,317/-. The appeal is preferred challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the claim petition.

¶24

::2::

¶25

M.A.C.A No.1547 Of 2011

¶26

The claimant was treated as inpatient for a period of 19 days. He was an engineering student aged 18 years at the time of accident. Ext.A4 wound certificate issued from the KIMS Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram certified that he had sustained compound fracture of right femur, head injury and the wound was sutured. Ext.A6 is the discharge summary. He was admitted in the KIMS Hospital on 29.5.2004 and was discharged on 15.6.2004. Ext.A6 discharge summary card would show that the petitioner had four fractures, open reduction and internal fixation was done, POP cast was put and bone grafting also was done. It has come out in evidence that he attended the very same hospital on 18.6.2004, 22.6.2004 and on 30.3.2005. Implant removal was done on 6.8.2004. He was discharged after implant removal on 12.8.2004. He also attended the hospital for review on 17.8.2004. Ext.A0 is the CT scan report. Considering the nature of injuries and the period of treatment undergone, the Tribunal noticed that he was subjected to a lot of sufferings because of the serious injuries suffered by him. The Tribunal awarded ` 25,000/- as compensation under the head pain and

¶27

::3::

¶28

M.A.C.A No.1547 Of 2011

¶29

suffering. For the very same reasons, we are of the view that the amount awarded for pain and suffering is not just and

¶30

reasonable. We fix 35,000/- for pain and suffering. Deducting the amount already awarded the claimant is entitled to 10,000/- as additional compensation under the said head. Exts.A13 to A19 documents show that the petitioner had an excellent academic record. He was a promising student doing B.Tech course at the time of accident. After his accident, he completed B.Tech and thereafter undergone M.Tech Course. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income @ 2,500/-. We are of the view that the monthly income taken is too low. Even for a layman monthly income will be not less than 3,000/-. At a moderate estimate, we fix the monthly income as ` 4,000/-. Ext.A11 is the disability certificate. It is certified that he has got mild disability of 25%. The learned counsel submits that still the claimant is suffering from permanent partial disability and that he is suffering from discomfort and inconveniences due to the permanent partial disability. Though it is certified mild disability of 25%, the Tribunal took 6% as permanent partial disability. On a reasonable estimate, we revise the

¶31

::4::

¶32

M.A.C.A No.1547 Of 2011

¶33

percentage as 10%. Applying the very same multiplier of 18 and fixing the monthly income as 4,000/- the compensation for disability which affects the earning power would work out to 86,400/- and deducting the amount of 28,880/- already award the claimant is entitled to 57,520/-. For bystander's expenses only 2,300/- was awarded. We are of the view that additional compensation of 2,000/- can be awarded under the said head. The claimant claimed 2,50,000/- as compensation for loss of amenities and future treatment. The Tribunal awarded only 20,000/- under the said head. We refix the compensation under the said head as 35,000/-. Deducting the amount already awarded, the claimant is entitled to 15,000/- under the head loss of amenities and future treatment. Thus, the claimant is entitled to total additional compensation of ` 84,520/-.

¶34

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment

¶35

and decree passed by the Tribunal is modified. The appellant/claimant is entitled to additional compensation of `84,520/- (Rupees eighty four thousand five hundred and twenty only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of

¶36

::5::

¶37

M.A.C.A No.1547 Of 2011

¶38

petition till realisation. The insurance company shall deposit the above said amount within a period of two months from

today.

HARUN-UL-RASHID,

Judge.

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge.

¶43

bkn/-

Deepak P.M. v. Kumara Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak P.M. v. Kumara Pillai

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

Rajeev Shenoy K.R. Vs the Official Liquidator

State of Kerala Vs Radhakumari

K.B.Ramachandran Nair Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs B.Sreekumar

Sirajudheen Vs Krishnankutty and Others

Sajeev Mon Philip @ Philipochan Vs Sibi @ Sibimon