Partly allowed

Gracy Thomas v. N.Radhakrishnan

Kerala HC7 Nov 2014MACA/967/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the motor accident claim appeal, ordering the insurer to pay an additional consolidated compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the appellant within two months. The court enhanced the award for pain and suffering, income, and loss of earning capacity.

What did the court decide?

The insurer directed to pay an additional consolidated compensation of Rs. 50,000 within two months; interest at 9% p.a. applicable only upon execution if not paid.

Gracy Thomas Vs N.Radhakrishnan — Execution and Attachment | 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. 967 of 2008 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 386/2004 of MACT PALA DATED 11.12.2007

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

GRACY THOMAS, KOCHUKAKKANATTU, VALLICHIRA, PALA.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.AJEESH K.SASI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):/RESPONDENTS

¶11

1. N.RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.NAVANEETHA KRISHNAN, 39 YRS, S DURAISWAMYPURAM, SINDLAKARAI POST ETTAYAPURAM.T.K, THOOTHUKUDI DT., TAMILNADU STATE.

¶12

2. K.MADASWMY, S/O.KARUPPASWAMY THEVAR, 109, D.KEELANALANTHULLA, NAYAKKARPATTI POST SANKARAN KOIL T.K. THIRUVELVELI DT. TAMIL NADU STATE.

¶13

3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., C.C.COMPLEX, IST FLOOR, 158, P.NEW ROAD, KOVILPATTAI.

¶14

R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)

¶15

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

¶16

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A.No.967 of 2008

¶17

.................................................................... Dated this the 7^th day of November, 2014.

¶18

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

¶19

1.This appeal is by the claimant in OP(MV) No.386 of 2004 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, which is jointly tried and disposed of as per a common award. The discussion as regards the appellant and the amounts awarded to her are reflected in paragraph Nos.16 & 17 and in the schedule given thereunder in the impugned award.

¶20

2.The learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurer took us through various materials on record and pointed out that it is just and reasonable to give a further enhancement of `50,000/- as a consolidated amount with no prior interest component thereon, however that, there could be a penalty by way of interest, if there is delay in depositing the amount in terms of this award. We have examined the said

MACA 967/08

-2-

suggestion.

3.On the whole, we are satisfied that the amount granted towards pain and suffering could be enhanced. Similarly, monthly income could have been taken at a higher amount, where 2000/- was fixed by the Tribunal. The appellant was 51 years of age at the time of accident. Having regard to the nature of the injuries, loss of amenities could have also been at a higher level. Loss of earning capacity could also be enhanced. We, therefore, feel that it is just and reasonable to enhance the compensation by 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), which would be a consolidated amount to be released by the insurer within a period of two months from today.

¶25

In the result, this appeal is allowed directing that the appellant is entitled to a further compensation of `50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with no accruing interest, provided such amount is paid by the insurer within a period of two months from today. If

¶26

MACA 967/08

¶27

-3-

¶28

execution of this appellate award becomes necessary, the amount of `50,000/- so awarded will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation. This appeal is allowed in part as above.

¶29

(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

¶30

(BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶31

Gracy Thomas v. N.Radhakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gracy Thomas v. N.Radhakrishnan

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

Harikrishnan Vs v.K.Anand

Nisha Vs C.a.Davis and Another

Sakeena K.T Vs Imbichipathu