Partly allowed

Biju v. Baburaj & Others

Kerala HC4 Jun 2014MACA/2054/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a motor accident compensation appeal where the High Court held the Tribunal's award insufficient. The Court revised the calculation of monthly income for disability compensation and awarded additional amounts for disability and loss of amenities to be paid by the insurer.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed. Respondent directed to pay an additional amount of Rs. 26,820/- with interest at 7.5% per annum over the impugned award amount.

Biju Vs Baburaj & Others — Medical Negligence | 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. 2054 of 2010 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 26/2005 of M.A.C.T.,KOLLAM DATED 14-01-2010

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

BIJU, VARUVILA VEEDU, POOTHAKULAM, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. BABURAJ, B.S.SADANAM, HOUSE NO.395, KALLUVATHUKKAL, KOLLAM.

¶12

2. ABHILASH, S/O.CHANDRASENAN, ULIYANADU, CHIRAKKARA.

¶13

3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLLAM.

¶14

*RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 04.06.2014 IN I.A.NO.1448/14.

¶15

R3 BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR

¶16

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

¶17

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶18

................................................................ M.A.C.A. No. 2054 of 2010

¶19

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

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

Dissatisfied with the award dated 14.01.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam in O.P.(MV) No.26/2005, the petitioner has come up in appeal.

¶22

On 21.09.2004, while the petitioner was riding on

¶23

a motorbike, he was knocked down by mini lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-01/F-7592 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, and thereby the appellant sustained very serious injuries. The first respondent is the registered owner of the lorry and the

¶24

3^rd respondent is its insurer. The Policy is admitted.

¶25

M.A.C.A. 2054 of 2010

¶26

-: 2 :-

¶27

The court below has granted a total amount of ₹58,900/- towards compensation. According to the appellant, no amount has been awarded as compensation towards loss of amenities and that the compensation for disability has been calculated by adopting an amount of ₹2000/- only as monthly income.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel of the 3^rd respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the appellant was a young man of 23 at the time of accident and he has suffered severe deformities on account of the injuries sustained. It seems that the appellant had sustained lacerated wound 6 x 2 x 1 cm involving upper and lower eye lid of right eye, lacerated wound 10 x 2 x 1 cm extending from pinna of ear up to zygomatic arch, and fracture of right frontal bone and floor of anterior cranial fossa extending to anterior and lateral wall of right orbit.

¶29

M.A.C.A. 2054 of 2010

¶30

-: 3 :-

¶31

It seems that the Tribunal has applied the correct multiplier of 17 and accepted the disability based on the medical records at 8%. It has to be noted that the Tribunal has taken his monthly income at ₹2,000/-, which is too low and that an amount of ₹3000/- has to be taken as the monthly income. The loss of earnings for three months has also to be calculated by considering the monthly income as ₹3,000/-. It seems that the court below has not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities. On a calculation, the compensation for disability will come to ₹48,960/-. An amount of ₹7,500/- has to be granted as compensation for loss of amenities. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to an additional amount of ₹26,820/- by way of compensation.

¶32

In the result, the M.A.C.A. is allowed as follows:

¶33

The 3^rd respondent is directed to pay an amount of ₹26,820/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of claim petition till the date of payment to the claimant, over and above the amount arrived at in the

¶34

M.A.C.A. 2054 of 2010

¶35

-: 4 :-

¶36

impugned award. The 3^rd respondent shall deposit the amount within 2 months from today.

¶37

Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE

¶38

ul/-

¶39

[True copy]

¶40

P.S. to Judge

Biju v. Baburaj & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju v. Baburaj & Others

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

Aboobacker Vs Purushu

Damodaran Vs M.D., Ksrtc

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Prameela