Partly allowed

Sunil v. Sudheer

Kerala HC2 Mar 2015MACA/62/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident claims appeal, the High Court of Kerala modified the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The court held the original assessment inadequate due to errors in estimating income and omitting compensation for loss of earnings and loss of amenities, enhancing the sum by Rs. 42,800/-.

What did the court decide?

The compensation granted by the Tribunal is modified granting a further sum of Rs. 42,800/- to the appellant.

Sunil Vs Sudheer — Medical Negligence | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2015/11TH PHALGUNA, 1936

¶5

MACA.No. 62 of 2013 ()

¶6

OPMV 1070/2007 of MACT, IRINJALAKUDA

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER :

¶8

SUNIL

¶9

S/O.SREEDHARAN, POOVATHINKAL HOUSE,

¶10

MANAKULANGARA P.O, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.BABY

¶12

SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :

¶14

SUDHEER

¶15

KALLUPARAMBIL HOUSE KALLETTUMKARA, IRINJALAKUDA 680683

¶16

RAJESH

¶17

S/O.RAJAN, KOCHERI HOUSE, THOMMANA P.O

¶18

THRISSUR DISTRICT 680683

¶19

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CHALAKKUDY 680 307

¶20

R3 BY ADV. DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY

¶21

R3 BY SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)

¶22

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-032015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶24

M.A.C.A. No.62 of 2013

¶25

Dated 2^nd March, 2015.

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The claimant in a petition for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has come up in this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal.

¶28

The claimant is a diamond worker. The accident took place on 10.3.2007. The claimant was aged 31 years at the time of accident. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was claimed in the petition by way of compensation. The Tribunal, on an appraisal of the materials on record, found that the claimant is entitled to only a sum of Rs.57,828/- and accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount. As the vehicle involved in the accident was covered by a valid insurance policy at the time of accident, the insurer was directed to satisfy the award. The claimant is aggrieved by the said award.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the claimant and the learned counsel for the insurer.

¶30

M.A.C.A. No.62 of 2013

¶31

¶32

From the documents produced by the claimant, the Tribunal found that the claimant sustained fracture of right distal radius. The Tribunal also found that the claimant had to amputate his left big toe on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Ext .A7 is the disability certificate issued to the claimant by PW2. In Ext .A7, the disability sustained by the claimant is assessed at 8%. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.36,000/- to the claimant towards compensation for continuing disability, reckoning his monthly income at Rs.2,500/-. According to me, since the accident took placed in the year 2007, the monthly income of the claimant should have been reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.4,500/-. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to get a further sum of Rs.28,800/- on that head. No compensation is seen awarded for loss of earnings. According to me, in the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, he is entitled to compensation for loss of earnings for a period of two months, which I fix at Rs.9,000/-. It is seen that no compensation is granted by the Tribunal towards loss of amenities and enjoyments in life. Having regard to the nature

¶33

M.A.C.A. No.62 of 2013

¶34

¶35

of injuries sustained by the claimant and the treatment undergone by him, I am of the view that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyments in life. Thus, the claimant is entitled to a further sum of Rs.42,800/- towards compensation.

¶36

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation granted by the Tribunal is modified granting a further sum of Rs.42,800/- to the claimant by way of compensation. Needless to say, the claimant will be entitled to interest also for the enhanced compensation at the same rate at which the interest was awarded by the Tribunal for the compensation granted.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶39

tgs

¶40

(true copy)

Sunil v. Sudheer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil v. Sudheer

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

Rajappan Vs Kutty and Others

Nadol Saseendran Vs Veer Veettil Thazha Kuniyil Sathyabhama

The Trichur Dist.Co-Op.Hospital Ltd. Vs Esi Corporation

Firoz Vs Sureshkumar

Rizni(Minor) Vs T.P.Riyas

V.Dbid Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.