Allowed

Khadeeja v. Anvar.K.K.

Kerala HC6 Jun 2014MACA/629/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court enhanced the compensation awarded by a lower tribunal in a motor accident case involving injuries to a 55-year-old coolie worker. The judgment corrected the disability percentage assessment, adjusted loss of earnings based on actual income, and increased compensation for pain and suffering and amenities.

What did the court decide?

Awarded additional compensation of ₹5,620/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum payable by the third respondent within three months.

Khadeeja Vs Anvar.K.K. — 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

FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/16TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

MACA.No. 629 of 2013 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 323/2011 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , KALPETTA DATED 07-12-2012

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

KHADEEJA , AGED 55 YEARS W/O.ALI , KALAPPARA HOUSE, THALAPPUZHA POST 8TH NUMBER MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANADU

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. ANVAR.K.K., AGED 21 YEARS S/O.ASSANAR K.P, KOZHITHANPARAMBIL HOUSE PUTHENPURA COLONY, KANIYARAM POST, MANANTHAVADY TALUK (DRIVER CUM OWNER OF THE AUTORICKSHAW NO KL 12/F-655) NO 12/6129/2010) PIN 670645

¶12

2. SURENDRAN V

¶13

S/O.VELAYUDHAN, 1/961 SUGANDHAGIRI UNIT 5 SUGANDHAGIRI POST, VYTHIRI TALUK (DRIVER CUM OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE NO KL 12/F-1642) PIN 673 576

¶14

3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

¶15

KALPETTA(BOTH VEHICLES INSURED) POLICY COVER NOTE NUMBER OF AUTORICKSHAW 571004326930 POLICY CERTIFICATE NUMBER OF MOTOR CYCLE 35100731106202497553 PIN 673 321

¶16

R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.RAMANAND STANDING COUNSEL BY SRI.M.A.GEORGE

¶17

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

¶18

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶19

................................................................ M.A.C.A. No. 629 of 2013

¶20

............................................................... Dated this the 6^th day of June, 2014

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Dissatisfied with award dated 07.12.2012 passed by

¶23

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Wayanad in O.P.(MV) No.323/2011, the petitioner has come up in appeal.

¶24

The appellant, a coolie worker aged 55, suffered

¶25

a motor vehicle accident on 11.04.2011, while she was travelling by an auto rickshaw ridden by the 1^st respondent, collided with a motorbike bearing Reg.No.KL-12F-1642 ridden by the 2^nd respondent. The accident had occurred solely due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the auto rickshaw and the rider of the motorbike. According to the appellant, both the vehicles were covered by valid insurance polices issued by the 3^rd respondent.

¶26

In the accident, the appellant sustained

¶27

M.A.C.A. 629 of 2013

¶28

-: 2 :-

¶29

(1) Lacerated wound right foot (2) Fracture left wrist (3) Abrasion right shoulder(4) Contusion right forehead and (5) Fracture metatarsal right foot, as is evident from Ext.A5 wound certificate issued from the District Hospital, Mananthavady. She had to undergo treatment as inpatient for nine days. She was issued with a disability certificate by the District Medical Board, Wayanad in which her permanent disability was assessed at 3%, as per the Mc-Bride's scale. The said Ext.C1 certificate further reveals that on assessment as per National Institute of Orthopedically Handicapped Scale(N.I.O.H) the disability was 15%. As the assessment under N.I.O.H. is confined to functional disability, and the permanent disability assessed as per Mc-Bride's scale is a whole body disability, the Tribunal has accepted the permanent disability at 3%. The Tribunal has passed the impugned award granting a total compensation of ₹41,020/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

¶31

M.A.C.A. 629 of 2013

¶32

-: 3 :-

¶33

the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant has canvassed an argument that the Tribunal ought to have considered the disability at 15% as assessed through N.I.O.H. scale, the said argument is of no merit at all. When the whole body disability has to be considered as permanent disability, the assessment made through the Mc-Bride's scale has to be adopted. The said disability has been assessed at 3%. Considering the nature of injuries, it cannot even be imagined that the said permanent disability will be more than 3%. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the appellant is a coolie worker who was having a monthly income of ₹4,000/-. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court of the view that her monthly income can be considered as ₹3,500/-. Therefore, the loss of earnings granted for three months has to be enhanced by an amount of ₹1,500/-. For pain and sufferings, an amount of ₹12,000/- only has been granted by the Tribunal. The same has to be enhanced to

¶34

M.A.C.A. 629 of 2013

¶35

-: 4 :-

¶36

₹15,000/-. Therefore, an additional amount of ₹3,000/- has also to be granted under that head. For compensation for permanent disability an amount of ₹11,340/- has to be granted instead of ₹9,720/-. For loss of amenities an amount of ₹5,000/- only was granted and the same has to be enhanced to ₹7,500/-. Therefore, this Court is of the view that an amount of ₹5,620/- more has to be granted as enhanced compensation to the appellant.

¶37

In the result, the M.A.C.A. is allowed in apart and amount of ₹5,620/- more is allowed as enhanced compensation to the appellant with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The said amount shall be paid by the 3^rd respondent within a period of three months from today.

¶38

Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE

¶39

ul/-

¶40

[True copy]

¶41

P.S. to Judge

Khadeeja v. Anvar.K.K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khadeeja v. Anvar.K.K.

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

Thankappan Vs Sreedharan Pillai

Krishnan.a. Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

State of Kerala Vs a.Abdul Hameed

Radhamani Vs S.v.Manoj

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs M/S Hotel Panchavady

State of Kerala Vs a. Durairaj