Partly allowed

Sirajudheen v. Krishnankutty and Others

Kerala HC9 Jun 2014MACA/719/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Motor Accident Claims Appeal, the High Court of Kerala held that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate. The Court revised the compensation, granting an additional rupees 46,600/- considering medical expenses, loss of earnings, pain and sufferings, and disability.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal's judgment set aside; appellant entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 46,600/- with interest @ 7% per annum to be deposited by insurance company within two months.

Sirajudheen Vs Krishnankutty and Others — Motor Accident Claims | 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

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/19TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶6

MACA.No. 719 of 2010 (A)

¶7

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 841/2006 of MACT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 23-10-2009

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶9

SIRAJUDHEEN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KAREEM, CHIRAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.AZHIKODE JETTY KODUNGALLUR.

¶10

BY ADVS.SMT.JEENA JOSEPH

¶11

SRI.G.D.PANICKER

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

KRISHNANKUTTY K.V., KOLLULLY HOUSE, P.O.EAST FORT, HOLLY GARDEN SURYAGRAMAM, TRICHUR DISTRICT (OWNER).

¶14

REJATH, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, KOLLULLY HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMPATTUKARA, TRICHUR (DRIVER).

¶15

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., PERINCHERY BUILDING, ROUND NORTH, TRICHUR POLICY NO.760301/31/05/05105 VALID FROM 16-07-2005 TO 15-07-2006.

¶16

R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

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

¶19

M.A.C.A No.719 Of 2010

¶20

Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2014.

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.

¶23

The claimant is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2009 in O.P (MV).NO.841/2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The claimant sustained injuries in a motor accident took place on 22.12.2005. The claimant was the rider of the motor cycle. The insurance company alone contested the case. The Tribunal allowed the claimant to realise an amount of ` 54,400/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and also proportionate costs. The claimant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the claim petition.

¶24

The claimant is aged 34 years. He suffered head injury and fracture on the right radius. Ext.A3 is the wound certificate issued from the Modern Hospital, Kodungallur. The claimant was treated as inpatient in the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam for 18 days with head injury and also comminuted

¶25

::2::

¶26

M.A.C.A No.719 Of 2010

¶27

fracture of distal end of right radius with volar displacement with inferior radio ulnar subluxation. Ext.A4 is the discharge card issued from the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam. Ext.A5 is the disability certificate certifying 7% disability. Ext.A5 certify that the claimant had sustained (a) subarachnoid hemorrhage with parietal bone fracture on left side and (b) fracture of distal end of radius with volar displacement and inferior radio ulnar subluxation. The doctor who issued Ext.A5 disability certificate certified that he has got complaints of pain and sufferings of his right wrist with difficulty in doing any hard work. The claimant is a goldsmith by profession. The doctor certified that the claimant cannot hold heavy objects in his right hand and that he cannot work as a goldsmith. Ext.A5 certificate also certified that on examination he was having the following disability:

¶28

“Partial ankylosis of right wrist joint”.

¶29

The petitioner remained without any job for a period of more than three months. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by him, his age, his profession as a gold smith and the present difficulties and discomforts he is undergoing, we

¶30

::3::

¶31

M.A.C.A No.719 Of 2010

¶32

are of the view that compensation awarded under different heads is inadequate and requires revision.

¶33

The claimant spent 26,600/- towards medical expenses as per Ext.A6 bills. The same was granted by the Tribunal. The accident occurred on 22.12.2005. The monthly income of 2,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable. We fix the monthly income of the claimant as 3,000/-. 1,000/- and 1,800/- granted by the Tribunal towards transportation expenses and bystander's expenses is not just and adequate and we therefore, grant 2,000/- and ` 1,800/- more under these two heads. For loss of earnings at

¶34

the rate of 3,000/- as monthly income, the claimant is entitled to 9,000/-. Deducting the amount already awarded, the claimant is entitled to 3,000/- as additional compensation under the head loss of earnings.12,000/- granted towards compensation for pain and sufferings is also not adequate. Considering the probable extent of measure of pain and discomfort undergone by the petitioner and the fact that he remained as inpatient for a period of 18 days and continued treatment thereafter, this Court is of the view that ` 12,000/-

¶35

::4::

¶36

M.A.C.A No.719 Of 2010

¶37

awarded is not adequate and therefore we revise the compensation and re-fix as 20,000/- for pain and sufferings. Deducting the amount already awarded, the claimant is entitled to additional compensation of 8,000/- under the said head. 10,000/- awarded for loss of amenities is also not just and adequate. Therefore, we grant additional compensation of 3,000/- over and above the amount granted by the Tribunal.

¶38

The Tribunal failed to award any amount towards compensation for disability. Ext.A5 certificate certified that he is still a suffering man unable to do the work of a goldsmith. The doctor certified 7% disability. On a rough and reasonable estimate, we fix the disability as 5%. Applying the multiplier as 16 and the monthly income as 3,000/-, the claimant is entitled to 28,800/- towards compensation for disability. Thus, the claimant is entitled to total additional compensation of ` 46,600/-.

¶39

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The appellant/claimant is entitled to additional compensation of

¶40

::5::

¶41

M.A.C.A No.719 Of 2010

¶42

`46,600/- (Rupees fortysix thousand and six hundred only) with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till reaslisation. The insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of two months from today.

¶43

HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge.

¶44

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge.

¶45

bkn/-

Sirajudheen v. Krishnankutty and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sirajudheen v. Krishnankutty and 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

Rajeev Shenoy K.R. Vs the Official Liquidator

State of Kerala Vs Radhakumari

K.B.Ramachandran Nair Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs B.Sreekumar

Deepak P.M. Vs Kumara Pillai

Sajeev Mon Philip @ Philipochan Vs Sibi @ Sibimon