Partly allowed

C.Sasi Kumar v. Anitha Kumari

Kerala HC5 Jun 2014MACA/174/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident appeal, the High Court of Kerala examined the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for a deceased coolie who suffered severe abdominal injuries in a 2000 auto accident. The court revised the monthly income estimate and adjusted payments for loss of earnings, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and permanent disability, ordering the insurer

What did the court decide?

The appellant is allowed to realize an additional compensation of Rs. 79,000/with interest at 9% per annum from the respondent insurance company, to be deposited within two months.

C.Sasi Kumar Vs Anitha Kumari — 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

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/15TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶6

MACA.No. 174 of 2007 ( )

¶7

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1031/2001 of MACT, TRIVANDRUM DATED 31.01.2006

¶8

APPELLANT/APPLICANT:

¶9

C. SASI KUMAR, (DIED)* S/O.CHELLAPPAN, PANANGAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, HOUSE NO.643, SANTHAMOOLA MALAYINKIL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

*ADDL. APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 IMPLEADED:

¶11

A2. GEETHA KUMARI.U, W/O.LATE C. SASIKUMAR, KUNJU VEEDUVILAKOM, KOTTOMBOORU, MALAYINKEEZHU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

A3. GEETHU SASIKUMAR, D/O. LATE C.SASIKUMAR, KUNJU VEEDUVILAKOM, KOTTOMBOORU, MALAYINKEEZHU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

A4. KEERTHI SASIKUMAR, D/O. LATE C.SASIKUMAR KUNJU VEEDUVILAKOM, KOTTOMBOORU, MALAYINKEEZHU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

***** LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED APPELLANT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 AS PER ORDER DATED 31.1.2014 IN I.A.NO.243/2014 IN M.A.C.A.NO.174/2007.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR

¶16

RESPONDENTS/RESPONENTS:

¶17

ANITHA KUMARI, T.C.22/73, ****** ( DELETED) DEVI BHAVAN, ATTUKAL, MANACODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

(CNTD.......2)

MACA.No. 174 of 2007

::2::

UNITED INIDA INSURANCE CO., DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.II, MALANKARA BUILDINGS, PALAYAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶22

****** RESPONDENT NO.1 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 5.2.2014 IN I.A.NO.341/14 IN M.A.C.A.NO.174/07.

¶23

R2 BY ADV. SMT.D.GEETHA R2 BY ADV. SMT.K.SHERIN MOHAN

¶24

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

MACA.No. 174 of 2007

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

APPELLANTS' EXHIBITS:

¶28

ANNEXURE-I:	TRUE COPY OF THE O.P TICKET DATED 24.2.2006 ISSUED BY HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MALAYINKIL PHC.
ANNEXURE-II:	TRUE COPY OF THE O.P. TICKET DATED 15.4.2006 ISSUED BY HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MALAYINKIL PHC.
ANNEXURE-III:	TRUE COPY OF THE O.P TICKET DATED 2.1.2006 ISSUED BY HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, S.C.D., PULAYANARKOTTAH.
ANNEXURE-IV:	TRUE COPY OF THE O.P TICKET DATED 9.10.2006 ISSUED BY HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE S.C.D, PULAYANARKOTTAH.

¶29

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶30

// TRUE COPY //

¶31

P.A TO JUDGE.

¶32

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

¶33

M.A.C.A No.174 Of 2007

¶34

Dated this the 5^th day of June, 2014.

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.

¶37

The claimant is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in O.P(MV).No.1031/2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. Pending appeal, the claimant died and his legal heirs are impleaded as additional appellants 2 to 4. The claimant is a coolie by profession. While he was pulling a handcart and selling peanuts, the offending auto rickshaw knocked him down resulting in serious injuries to him. The accident was occurred on 20.9.2000. The actual age of the claimant is not known. The Tribunal found that he was aged between 40-45 years. As against the claim of ` 3,00,000/-,

¶38

the Tribunal awarded ` 1,00,000/-. The quantum of compensation is under challenge in this appeal. Parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the claim petition.

¶39

The claimant was examined as PW1. Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on his side. Ext.X1 was also marked. The

¶40

oral and documentary evidence on record show that the auto

¶41

::2::

¶42

M.A.C.A No.174 Of 2007

¶43

rickshaw had ran over his abdomen and he sustained serious internal injuries. The wound certificate marked as Ext.A5 certified that the claimant had sustained a lacerated wound measuring 2 x ½ x ½ cm on the left side of the forehead. His abdomen was distended. He was admitted to the Medical College Hospital on 20.9.2000 and discharged on 30.9.2000. Ext.X1 medical record summoned from the Medical College Hospital shows that the petitioner had sustained internal injuries on the abdomen and had to undergo laparotomy for the blunt injury on the abdomen. Ext.X1 also shows that the claimant had peritonitis and pus formation in the lower abdomen. The doctors recommended further surgery. The claimant was again admitted to the Medical College Hospital on 6.4.2002 for complaints of swelling on the anterior abdominal wall which was diagnosed as incisional hernia which was corrected by surgery and he was discharged on 17.4.2002. Ext.A9 disability certificate issued by the Assistant Professor of Surgery, Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram certified that the claimant had a teat in the lower ileum with leakage of intestinal contents with peritonitis and the

¶44

::3::

¶45

M.A.C.A No.174 Of 2007

¶46

peritoneal cavity contained about one litre of pus. The tear in the ileum was sutured and the pus removed by saline wash.

¶47

The claimant underwent regular follow up treatment. It is certified that the claimant had recurrent episodes of abdominal distension and discomfort which was treated conservatively. It is also not disputed that he had swelling and bulge over the anterior abdominal wall and therefore surgery for hernia repair was done. The doctor assessed the permanent disability of the claimant at 16%.

¶48

The claimant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. According to him, the Tribunal failed to consider the claim in the proper perspective

¶49

and awarded lesser sum under every head. We have examined the contention of the claimant with reference to the oral evidence and medical records. It has come out in evidence that he is a coolie by profession. He was earning income and maintaining his family by selling peanuts everyday in a handcart. The accident happened on 20.9.2000. Considering the fact that the accident happened during the year 2000, age and occupation of the claimant, we are of the

¶50

::4::

¶51

M.A.C.A No.174 Of 2007

¶52

view that the monthly income assessed as 2,000/- per month is not just and reasonable. We fix monthly income of the claimant as 3,000/-. For loss of earnings, the Tribunal awarded a sum of 8,000/-. Considering the fact that he sustained serious injuries in the accident and undergone surgery and treatment for long periods, we are of the view that the claimant is entitled to realise compensation for loss of earnings for a period of six months. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to 18,000/- for loss of earnings. Deducting the amount already awarded, the claimant is entitled to 10,000/under the said head. Towards medical and incidental expenses, Tribunal awarded a sum of 4,750/-. For the very same reasons as stated for the loss of earnings, we find that the claimant is entitled to additional compensation of 5,000/-. Towards transportation to hospital, extra nourishment and engaging a bystander a sum of 1,000/- each was granted by the Tribunal. Considering the injuries, pain, sufferings and surgeries undergone and the period of treatment, we fix `10,000/- as compensation under the three heads. Deducting the amount already awarded, the claimant is entitled to

¶53

::5::

¶54

M.A.C.A No.174 Of 2007

¶55

7,000/-. For pain and sufferings, 15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable. We notice that the claimant had undergone surgeries even on 6.4.2002 for complaints of swelling on the anterior abdominal wall and was discharged on 17.4.2004. Taking into consideration the period of treatment, surgeries and sufferings undergone, we are of the view that claimant is entitled to additional compensation of 20,000/-. Permanent disability certified is 16%. 16% permanent disability was certified because of incisional hernia and bulge. There is no reason not to accept 16% permanent disability certified by the doctor. The Tribunal reduced the percentage of disability as 15%. Adopting the monthly income as 3,000/- and applying the same multiplier adopted by the Tribunal and placing reliance on Ext.A9 disability certificate, an amount of 81,000/- can be calculated for permanent partial disability resulting in loss of earning power. Deducting the amount already given, the claimant is entitled to additional compensation of 27,000/-. For loss of amenities also, we are of the view that ` 15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is not adequate and reasonable. We are of the view that the

¶56

::6::

¶57

M.A.C.A No.174 Of 2007

¶58

claimant is entitled to 10,000/- as additional compensation under the said head. Thus, the claimant is entitled to total additional compensation of 79,000/-.

¶59

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the court below is modified. The appellant is allowed to realise the additional compensation of `79,000/- (Rupees Seventy Nine Thousand only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the insurance company from 30.7.2001 till realisation. The insurance company shall deposit the additional compensation within a period of two months from today.

¶60

HARUN-UL-RASHID,

¶61

Judge.

¶62

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge.

¶63

bkn/-

C.Sasi Kumar v. Anitha Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Sasi Kumar v. Anitha Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Marykutty Joseph Vs the State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Sindhu K.G.

Elsy Joseph and Others Vs Liji Joseph and Others

State of Kerala Vs a.Yayasree

Jaffer Vs Penchali Jafer

Razhiya Vs K.a.Sreenivasan