Partly allowed

Harikrishnan v. v.K.Anand

Kerala HC7 Nov 2014MACA/2062/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a partial motor accident claims appeal, enhancing compensation from Rs.49,300/- to include amounts for future treatment, lost earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities based on the appellant's 15% disability.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.1,71,000/- granted with 9% interest, directed to be deposited by the insurer within two months.

Harikrishnan Vs v.K.Anand — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/16TH KARTHIKA, 1936

¶5

MACA.No. 2062 of 2011 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 889/2007 of M.A.C.T OTTAPPALAM DATED 28.3.2011

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

HARIKRISHNAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, CHANDICHALIL HOUSE, KORAMCHIRA P.O., VADAKKANCHERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. V.K.ANAND,

¶12

2/191, VELUTHAKKAL VEEDU, PARUVASSERY,

¶13

CHERUKANNAMBRA, PALAKKAD.

¶14

2. MURALIDHARAN, S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, VELUTHUKARAN HOUSE, CHERUKANNAMBRA, PARUVASSERY, PALAKKAD.

¶15

3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,

¶16

NENMARA BRANCH, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶17

REP. BY THE BRANCH MANAGER.

¶18

R3 BY ADV. SMT.DEEPA GEORGE

¶19

R BY SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD

¶20

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

ANNEXURE-A:	TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CARD NO.F24134/06 ISSUED FROM JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL, THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE-B:	TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL BILL DATED 29.10.11 FOR RS.4500/- ISSUED FROM JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL, THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE-C:	TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL BILL DATED 03.11.11 FOR RS.3,000/- ISSUED FROM JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL, THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE-D:	TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL BILL DATED 04.11.11 FOR RS.667/- ISSUED FROM JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL, THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE-E:	TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL BILL DATED 05.11.11 FOR RS.376/- ISSUED FROM JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL, THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE-F:	TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 05.11.11 FOR RS.2,710/- ISSUED FROM JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL, THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE-G:	TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 10.11.11 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS -

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &

¶30

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶31

M.A.C.A.2062 of 2011

¶32

Dated this the 7^th day of November, 2014 J U D G M E N T

¶33

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

¶34

1.This appeal is by the claimant in a motor accident claim petition. He suffered a road traffic accident in June, 2006. He was riding a motor cycle. The offending vehicle, an autorikshw hit against the motor cycle. The finding of the Tribunal is that the driver of the autorikshaw was at fault. The insurer of the authorikshaw was directed to pay an amount of Rs.49,300/(Rupees Forty nine thousand and three hundred only) towards compensation. Hence, this appeal by the claimant, on the ground of inadequacy of the amount awarded by the Tribunal.

¶35

2.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurer.

¶36

3.The material evidence in the case, including the additional evidence admittedly shows that the appellant suffered a 'cervico trochanteric fracture neck of right femur. He

¶37

¶38

M.A.C.A.2062/11

¶39

underwent surgical fixation of that fracture under general anesthesia. He was inpatient in hospital for 9 days. Following that, he was discharged for management at home. The additional evidence submitted today shows that as a consequence of the injuries suffered by the appellant in the road traffic accident to his right femur bone, he had to suffer further consequential damage to the bones, particularly in the right knee. He has undergone further surgical procedure for that as well, with the passage of time.

¶40

4.The appellant deposed before the court below that he was earning Rs.500/- per day. He was an artist and a graphic designer. On a rough estimate, we are satisfied that at the time of the accident, in June 2006, that 26 year old gentleman would have been earning about Rs.5,000/- per month, which by itself could be treated to reflect the probable escalation of income in future for the purpose of determining compensation. We think that it is just and reasonable to take Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income that the appellant had derived at the time of accident in the absence of corroborating materials which support the testimony of PW1.

¶41

¶42

M.A.C.A.2062/11

¶43

5.Taking the aforesaid into consideration, we determine the loss of total earnings as Rs.18,000/-, that is to say, at the rate of 3,000/- per month for six months.

¶44

6.We do not see that any enhancement is required for the medical expenses incurred in the claim petition filed. However, we see that a further amount of around Rs.11,000/has been spent during the pendency of the appeal including for the second surgery. We, therefore, grant a further amount of Rs.11,000/- towards medical and miscellaneous expenses, till now. For future treatment, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded. We award a further amount of Rs.2,000/- towards bystander expenses in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The amount awarded for pain and suffering is enhanced to Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.12,000/-. Loss of amenities and conveniences has to be determined on the basis of the fact that he has a whole body disability of 15%, explicitly described in the disability certificate and he was aged only 26 years at that time. We enhance the loss of amenities to Rs.20,000/-, thereby awarding an additional amount of Rs.15,000/- under that head. For determining the

¶45

¶46

M.A.C.A.2062/11

¶47

compensation for earning disability, we determine his projected future expenditure to be at Rs.5,000/-. The multiplier to be applied is 17. Thereby, the amount due under this head is 5,000 x 12 x 10 x 17/100 = 1,02,000/-, The total additional compensation due to the appellant is Rs.1,45,200/- (Rupees One lakh forty five thousand and two hundred only).

¶48

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part granting payment of additional amount of Rs.1,71,000/- (Rupees One and seventy one thousand only) as additional compensation with 9% interest thereon. The 3^rd respondent insurer is directed to deposit the amount within a period of two months from now, failing which, the appellant will be entitled to 9% interest from the date of the claim petition.

¶49

(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

¶50

(BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶51

The amount “₹1,45,200/- (Rupees One lakh forty five thousand and two hundred only)” occurring in the 5^th line at page 4 of paragraph 6 of the judgment dated 07/11/2014 in M.A.C.A.No.2062/2011 is corrected as “₹1,65,000/- (Rupees One lakh sixty five thousand only)” and the figures and words “₹ 1,71,000/- (Rupees One lakh and seventy one thousand only)” occurring in the 2^nd line of last paragraph at page 4 are

¶52

¶53

M.A.C.A.2062/11

¶54

corrected and substituted as 1,65,000/- ( Rupees One lakh sixty₹ five thousand only)” as per order dated 19/08/2016 in I.A.No.929/2016 in M.A.C.A.No.2062/2011.

¶55

Sd/Registrar (Judicial)

¶56

Harikrishnan v. v.K.Anand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harikrishnan v. v.K.Anand

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

Sudhakumari and Others Vs Govardhan Ragar and Others

S.Dharmaraj Vs Jose v.Manjooran

Bapputty M. Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Chevayoor

Gracy Thomas Vs N.Radhakrishnan

Nisha Vs C.a.Davis and Another

Sakeena K.T Vs Imbichipathu