Allowed

Mahin v. the Branch Manager, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Kerala HC30 May 2016MACA/122/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in this appeal enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to ₹2,00,000, adding ₹20,000 for future medical expenses, transportation, sustenance, and disability. The Court directed the insurance company to deposit the amount within two months.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of ₹20,000 granted; total additional entitlement ₹40,000 to be deposited by the insurance company within two months with interest.

Mahin Vs the Branch Manager, the New India Assurance… — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH

¶6

MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2016/9TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶7

MACA.No. 122 of 2013 ()

¶8

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 481/2009 of M.A.C.T., KOLLAM DATED 30.04.2012

¶9

APPELLANT(S):PETITIONER IN O.P.(MV)

¶10

MAHIN

¶11

S/O.ABOOBAKER, KAMPIVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PERAYAM, THAZHUTHALA KOLLAM.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):3RD RESPONDENT

¶14

THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER

¶16

BY ADV.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

C.T. RAVIKUMAR

¶19

¶20

K. P. JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.

¶21

========================== M.A.C.A. No.122 OF 2013

¶22

==========================

¶23

Dated this the 30^th day of May, 2016

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Jyothindranath, J.

¶26

This appeal is preferred by the claimants in O.P.(MV).No.481 of 2009 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam against its award dated 30.4.2012.

¶27

2.The case of the appellant/claimant is that while he was riding a motor cycle, an accident occurred involving another mini bus. The accident occurred on 3.9.2008 at Umayanalloor Mosque area. Alleging negligence on the side of the driver of the mini bus as cause of accident, a claim petition was moved before the Tribunal claiming a total sum of `2,00,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal awarded a

¶28

M.A.C.A.122/2013

¶29

¶30

total sum of `79,500/-. Aggrieved by the said award, this appeal preferred.

¶31

3.When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that, in this case, no appeal is preferred by the respondents in the claim petition. The liability of the insurance company is admitted. The negligence aspect is not under challenge. Now, the point to be considered is regarding the insufficiency of the compensation awarded. It is the further submission that the appellant is a business man by profession. The accident occurred in the year 2008. He sustained a both bone fracture of left forearm as well as he lost 4 teeth. It is the submission that the

¶32

compensation awarded is on a lower side.

¶33

4.We heard the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company. The learned counsel submitted before us that the injury is on the forearm. There is no complication. Even though there is no

¶34

M.A.C.A.122/2013

¶35

¶36

complication, the Tribunal awarded `16,320/- towards permanent disability. It is the submission that without any material, the disability was considered by the Tribunal. It is also submitted that the compensation awarded is just and proper and interference by this Court is not warranted.

¶37

5.We perused the award and also the schedule attached to the

¶38

award. It can be seen that the Tribunal considered the notional income of `4,000/- for calculation purposes. No evidence adduced to show that the injured was actually conducting any business. Under such circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the said findings. It can be seen that internal fixtures were fixed during

¶39

treatment. No amount is seen awarded towards future treatment

¶40

expenses. Surely, there was ORIF done and IF has to be removed in future or new fixture has to be fixed, if found necessary. Thus, considering all these aspects, a sum of `10,000/- is awarded towards future medical expenses. Apart from this, the Tribunal

¶41

M.A.C.A.122/2013

¶42

¶43

awarded only 1,625/- towards bystanders expenses by taking 125/- per day. We feel that an enhancement on this count is also necessary. Thus, an additional sum of 975/- is awarded on this count. Towards transportation expenses, only a sum of 1,000/- is seen awarded. The appellant was treated twice, as inpatient. It can be seen that a further surgery may be necessary for the removal of internal fixtures. Thus, an additional sum of 2,000/- is awarded on the head of transportation expenses. This is a case where there are injuries on the face. 4 teeth were lost. Thus, considering the injuries and the nature of the food taken during treatment period, an additional sum of 1,000/- is granted for extra nourishment. No amount is seen awarded towards damage to cloth and articles. A sum of 1,000/- is granted on this head. Here is a case where there is loss of teeth. Further, there is both bone fracture of left forearm. The Tribunal considered 2% disability. Thus, a sum of 5,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities in future. Thus, the appellant will be entitled for an additional sum of `19,975/- which is rounded to

¶44

M.A.C.A.122/2013

¶45

¶46

`20,000/-. The additional compensation will bear 8% interest from the date of the petition till realisation. The respondent, insurance company, shall deposit the amount within two months of the date of receipt of the copy this judgment. If the amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, additional compensation will bear 9% interest from the date of the petition till realisation. There will be no order as to costs.

¶47

Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)

¶48

Sd/K. P. JYOTHINDRANATH (JUDGE)

spc/

M.A.C.A.122/2013

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

M.A.C.A.122/2013

JUDGMENT

September, 2010

M.A.C.A.122/2013 8

Mahin v. the Branch Manager, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahin v. the Branch Manager, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

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

Muhammed Rafi Vs George Cheriyan and Others

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Saleena

A.G.Francis Vs Tomy Peter

The General Manager, Ksidc, Tvpm Vs Vadavathi Babu

Sathish Kumar Vs Union of India

Nagalakshmi Vs Suresh Babu