Allowed

Muhammed Rafi v. George Cheriyan and Others

Kerala HC27 May 2016MACA/131/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident claims appeal, a two-judge division of the High Court at Ernakulam enhanced the compensation awarded to a minor victim who sustained fractures, tooth loss, and disfigurement in a jeep accident. The court ordered the respondent insurer to deposit the additional amount. The case highlighted the injury impact on the child's future marriage prospects.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation by rupees forty-five thousand payable with interest.

Muhammed Rafi Vs George Cheriyan and Others — Medical Negligence | 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

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2016/6TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶7

MACA.No. 131 of 2012 ( )

¶8

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 900/2005 of MACT, VADAKARA DATED 21-08-2008

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶10

MUHAMMED RAFI

¶11

S/O.LAILA POCKER, (MINOR) AGED 10 YEARS DATE OF BIRTH (24.06.95), REPRESENTED BY MOTHER GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND LAILA POCKER W/O.POCKER, KAPPALLICHALIL HOUSE, KAYANNA AMSOM DESOM KAYANNA P.O., PERAMBRA KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

1.GEORGE CHERIAN

¶15

S/O.CHERIAN, VELAKULATHIL HOUSE

¶16

P.O.KALLANODE, KAKKAYAM VIA, KOORACHUNDU KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE 673001

¶17

2.NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. TRIPURI BUILDING, EAST NADAKKAVU, CALICUT-673001

¶18

3.JOSEPH CHERIYAN, S/O.CHERIYAN VALAKULATHIL HOUSE P.O.KALLANODE, KURACHUNDU ATHIYODI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673001

¶19

R2 BY ADV. SRI.ZIYAD REHMAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.BABU

¶20

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

C.T. RAVIKUMAR &

¶22

K. P. JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.

¶23

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

¶24

M.A.C.A. No.131 OF 2012

¶25

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

¶26

Dated this the 27^th day of May, 2016

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Ravikumar, J.

¶29

The appellant-petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident at the tender age of 10 years. He preferred this appeal on being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vadakara in O.P.(MV).No.900 of 2005. On 7.5.2005, the appellant was riding a bicycle through Perambra-Chembra route. He was hit by the offending vehicle, viz., a jeep bearing Reg.No.KL/11 E 8541 driven by the third respondent, in a rash and negligent manner. On sustaining injuries, he was taken to Community Health Centre, Perambra and later, to Baby Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode. He had been inpatient there from 7.5.2005 to

¶30

M.A.C.A.131/2012

¶31

¶32

15.5.2005 and subsequently, from 19.4.2006 to 21.4.2006. In the

¶33

accident, he sustained the following injuries:-

¶34

Loss of 5 teeth

¶35

Lacerated wound on the upper lip and chin

¶36

It is in the said circumstances that claiming compensation for the injuries sustained, the above referred claim petition was moved through his guardian and next friend Laila, who is none other than his mother.

¶37

2.To establish his claim, the appellant got marked Exts.A1 to A9. On the side of the respondent, Ext.B1 to B3 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced by both sides. The Tribunal considered the evidence on record and the rival contentions and passed an award for an amount of 96,669/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with cost of 2,500/-. It is feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted that the above appeal has been preferred.

¶38

M.A.C.A.131/2012

¶39

¶40

Heard both sides.

¶41

4.The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the compensation granted by the Tribunal under different heads is on the lower side and it is the erroneous estimation of such compensation that resulted in deprivation of just compensation. The learned counsel contended that taking note of the fact that the appellant was aged only 10 years at the time of the accident and also taking note of the injuries sustained by him, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering, transportation expenses and inconveniences and loss of teeth can only be taken as too inadequate. The Tribunal granted an amount of 25,000/- under the head pain and suffering. We have already taken note of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident. Taking into account the said factor and also considering the age of the appellant, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to get 15,000/- more under the said head. It is to

¶42

M.A.C.A.131/2012

¶43

¶44

be noted that after perusing Exts.A2 and A8, the Tribunal found that

¶45

the appellant had sustained fracture of maxilla with mid platal split, multiple fracture of mandible, soft tissue laceration, avulsion of 3 teeth and crown fracture of one teeth. Ext.A8 would specifically reveal that the root canal treatment was done. Taking note of the age of the appellant and the aforenoted injuries, we are of the considered view that the appellant must have caused disfigurement owing the accident. Certainly, it would be a factor which would adversely affect his marriage prospects. Taking note of the said facts, the appellant is entitled to get 30,000/- as compensation under the said head. Despite the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant claiming for enhancement of compensation under transportation expenses and inconveniences, loss of teeth, we are of the view that the Tribunal has granted adequate compensation under all such heads. In the light of the above discussions, the appellant is entitled to get a total enhancement of 45,000/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 8% from the date of the petition till realisation. The second

¶46

M.A.C.A.131/2012

¶47

¶48

respondent shall deposit the enhanced amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment failing which the amount remaining to be paid will carry interest at 9% from

¶49

the date of the petition. There will be no order as to costs.

Sd/-

C.T. RAVIKUMAR

(JUDGE)

Sd/-

K. P. JYOTHINDRANATH

(JUDGE)

spc/

M.A.C.A.131/2012

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

M.A.C.A.131/2012

JUDGMENT

September, 2010

Muhammed Rafi v. George Cheriyan and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Rafi v. George Cheriyan and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naveed Akthar Sait Vs State of Kerala

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Abjdh

Yousaf Vs D.Albert

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Saleena

A.G.Francis Vs Tomy Peter

Mercy Francis Vs Augustine .M.M