Allowed

Aboobacker v. Purushu

Kerala HC4 Jun 2014MACA/167/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the Motor Accident Claims Appeal. The court held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate. An additional sum of ₹16,500 with interest was granted for transport, loss of earnings, and loss of amenities. The judgment also addressed the issue of the rider lacking a driving license, directing the insurer to pay the amount directly.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of ₹16,500 with 7% interest per annum granted; insurer directed to pay recovered from owner.

Aboobacker Vs Purushu — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/14TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

MACA.No. 167 of 2011 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1351/2008 of M.A.C.T.,KOZHIKODE DATED 11-11-2009

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

ABOOBACKER, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.ABDURAHIMANKUTTY, KUZHIMANNIL HOUSE, POST CHEROOPA MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. PURUSHU, S/O.RARU, 7/513, PULPARAMBIL HOUSE, PANTHEERANKAVU POST, KOZHIKODE 673 019.

¶12

2. SURESH KUMAR M.P., S/O.BALAKRISHNANNAIR, MAYANGATTU PARAMBATH HOUSE, PERUVAYAL P.O. KOZHIKODE 673 204.

¶13

3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE II, PRAMOD BUILDING, CHEROOTTY ROAD KOZHIKODE - 1.

¶14

R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶17

M.A.C.A. No. 167 of 2011

¶18

............................................................... Dated this the 4^th day of June, 2014

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Dissatisfied with the award in O.P.(MV) No.1351/2008

¶21

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, the petitioner has come up in appeal.

¶22

The appellant sustained serious injuries in a motor accident on 15.05.2008, occurred on account of the negligence of the 2^nd respondent in riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-11-N-6717. The 1^st respondent is the registered owner of the motorbike and the 3^rd respondent is the insurer.

¶23

It seems that the appellant had sustained fracture of both bones of left leg; lacerated wound 4 x 3 cm over upper 1/3^rd left leg and swelling and deformity of left leg. He had undergone treatment as inpatient from 15.05.2008 to

¶24

M.A.C.A. 167 of 2011

¶25

-: 2 :-

¶26

22.05.2008 and thereafter from 14.08.2008 to 20.08.2008. Even though medical bills to a tune of ₹29,217/- were submitted, the Tribunal had honoured medical bills for an amount of ₹6,602/- only, as the other medical bills pertained to Ayurvedic medicines were not supported by any prescriptions or other documents. The court below has granted an amount of ₹27,852/-, with interest, as compensation.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that under the head transport to hospital an amount of ₹500/- only was granted by the Tribunal. For loss of earnings, the Tribunal has granted only ₹2,500/-, and towards loss of amenities the Tribunal has granted an amount of ₹1,000/- only. It has been pointed out that the amounts fixed by the Tribunal under those heads are quite inadequate and do not reflect the actuals. According to the learned counsel for the appellant,

¶28

M.A.C.A. 167 of 2011

¶29

-: 3 :-

¶30

the appellant was working abroad and he was on leave during the period of accident; but no evidence has been adduced to show that he was working abroad. He was aged 55 years at the time of accident. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the court below has considered his monthly earnings as ₹2,500/- and fixed one month's income as loss of earnings. Considering the seriousness of the injuries sustained to him, it is evident that at least for four months he would have been unable to do any work at all and his income for four months have to be granted as compensation towards loss of earnings, by considering his monthly income as ₹3000/-. Towards transport to hospital an amount of ₹500/- more can be granted, over and above the amount arrived at by the Tribunal. Towards loss of amenities, it seems that a meagre amount of ₹1,000/- has been fixed by the court below which is totally inadequate. An amount of ₹7,500/- has to be granted towards loss of amenities. Therefore, the appellant

¶31

M.A.C.A. 167 of 2011

¶32

-: 4 :-

¶33

is entitled to get an additional compensation of ₹16,500/-, over and above the amount granted by the Tribunal.

¶34

In the result, this appeal is allowed and an additional

¶35

compensation of ₹16,500/- with 7% interest per annum is granted to the appellant. The Tribunal is granted permission to the 3^rd respondent to pay the amount and to recover the same from the registered owner, as the rider had no driving license to ride the motorbike. Such conditions will apply herein also. The 3^rd respondent shall deposit the amount within a period of two months from today.

¶36

Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE

¶37

ul/-

¶38

[True copy]

¶39

P.S. to Judge

Aboobacker v. Purushu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aboobacker v. Purushu

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

Vijaya Babu Vs the Federal Bank Limited

Eliyas Vs Shanmugarajan

Babu Mathew Vs Basil Baby

Biju Vs Baburaj & Others

Damodaran Vs M.D., Ksrtc

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Prameela