Partly allowed

C.H.Moidu,S/O.Ibrahim Hajee,Kozhikode v. Kumaran,S/O.Chekkotti,P.O.Kurinhaliyode

Kerala HC17 May 2016MACA/306/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the injured claimant by the Tribunal. The Court increased compensation for extra nourishment, damage to clothing, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities based on the nature of injuries and permanent disability.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation by Rs. 28,250/- with interest at 8% (or 9% if not deposited within two months).

C.H.Moidu,S/O.Ibrahim Hajee,Kozhikode Vs… — 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

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MAY 2016/27TH VAISAKHA, 1938

¶6

M.A.C.A.No. 306 of 2011 ( )

¶7

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)No.644/2008 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA DATED 21-12-2010

¶8

APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:

¶9

C.H.MOIDU, S/O.IBRAHIM HAJEE,

¶10

AGED 45 YEARS, CHATHOTH HOUSE, P.O.KATAMERI, VILLIAPPALLY, KOZHIKODE.

¶11

BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RASHMI

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

KUMARAN, S/O.CHEKKOTTI, PALLITHAZHA KUNIYIL HOUSE,

¶14

P.O.KURINHALIYODE, VILLIAPPALLY, VATAKARA TALUK.

¶15

C.M.CHANDRAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, CHERUVATT HOUSE, P.O.KURINHALIYODE.

¶16

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KEYIS SHOPPING COMPLEX, NARANGAPURAM, TELLICHERRY.

¶17

R3 BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE

¶18

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

C.T.RAVIKUMAR & K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.

¶20

M.A.C.A.No.306 of 2011

¶21

Dated 17^th May, 2016

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Ravikumar, J.

¶24

The captioned appeal has been preferred by the injured claimant on being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara in O.P.(M.V)No.644 of 2008. The facts that led to the filing of this appeal may be stated succinctly as hereunder:-

¶25

On 18.12.2007 the appellant was riding his motor cycle from Vatakara to Kadameri. When he reached near Villiappally at about 5.30 p.m. the offending vehicle which is an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL 18/B 5609, allegedly driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against his motor cycle. Consequently, he fell down and sustained injuries. The appellant was taken to MIMS Hospital, Calicut and he had been an inpatient there from 18.12.2007 to 20.12.2007. He incurred permanent disability owing to the said accident. It is in the said circumstances that the above mentioned claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act

¶26

M.A.C.A.No.306/2011

¶27

¶28

claiming a compensation of 3,00,000/-. As per the impugned award₹ the Tribunal granted an amount of 83,740/- as compensation with₹ interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 7.7.2008 till realisation. As noticed hereinbefore, it is dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation that this appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶29

Evidently, before the Tribunal, to establish the claim of compensation the appellant got himself examined as PW1 and got marked Exts.A1 to A10. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondents and on their behalf Ext.B1 which is the copy of the insurance policy was marked. Ext.C1 is the court exhibit and it is the certificate of permanent disability incurred by the appellant, dated 12.8.2010. Evidently, it is appreciating the rival contentions and analyzing the evidence on record that the impugned award was passed for an amount of 83,740/-. The 3₹ rd respondent did not dispute the existence of a valid insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. Evidently, the respondents did not file any appeal against the impugned award. In such circumstances, it can be safely said that the cause of the accident as the negligence and rashness from the part of the 2^nd respondent is also not in dispute. In

¶30

M.A.C.A.No.306/2011

¶31

¶32

such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the question to be considered in this appeal is whether or not the appellant is entitled to enhancement of compensation as claimed.

¶33

The occupation and income of the appellant are also not in dispute. It was specifically stated in the claim petition that the claimant was working as Hindi Teacher in Rahimania High School, Ayancheri and Ext.A10 is the salary certificate. The Tribunal took one month as the period of loss of earning and granted an amount of ₹ 10,720/- as compensation for loss of earning. Since there is no dispute regarding the occupation and income, in the absence of any evidence on record to show that the appellant is entitled to reckon more period for the aforesaid purpose we do not find any reason to interfere with the compensation granted under that head. After going through the amount awarded we are of the considered view that there is scope for enhancement of the compensation only under the heads extra nourishment', damage to clothing', pain and suffering' and loss of amenities and conveniences'. Evidently, a month's period was taken for the purpose of granting an amount of 2,000/- towards expenses for₹ extra nourishment. Taking into account the fact that the accident occurred on 18.12.2007 and the cost of living at the relevant point of time we are of the view that an amount of 150/- per day ought to₹

¶34

M.A.C.A.No.306/2011

¶35

¶36

have been granted towards expenses for extra nourishment. Calculating the same in that manner the appellant would be entitled to get an amount of 2,500/- additionally. We award the same. Towards₹ damage to clothing the appellant claimed an amount of 1,000/- and₹ the Tribunal granted an amount of 250/-. Ext.A3 is the copy of₹ accident register-cum-wound certificate, Ext.A4 is the discharge summary issued from Malabar Institute of Medical Science Ltd. and Ext.A5 is the C.T.Scan report issued from the Badagara Co-operative Hospital Ltd. Ext.A5 C.T.Scan report would reveal that C.T.Scan of the head detected left parietal depressed fracture with extra dural haematoma. It would also reveal that treatment was given for an emergency evacuation of haematoma and the depressed fracture was elevated. Taking into account the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant there cannot be any doubt with respect to the fact that the dresses worn by the appellant on that day must have been damaged. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the amount claimed by the appellant towards damage to clothing can be granted. In that view of the matter we are inclined to grant an amount of 750/-₹ more towards damage to clothing. As compensation for pain and suffering the appellant claimed an amount of 1,00,000/-, but, the₹ Tribunal granted only an amount of 15,000/-. Exts.A3 to A5 and also₹

¶37

M.A.C.A.No.306/2011

¶38

¶39

Ext.C1 would reveal that in the accident the appellant had a fracture and he had also undergone surgical procedures. He had been an inpatient for three days. We had already mentioned about the treatment underwent by the appellant. In the said circumstances, we are of the considered view that the amount granted towards compensation for pain and suffering requires an enhancement. Taking into account the aforesaid aspects, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to get an amount of 10,000/- more under the aforesaid₹ head. Towards loss of amenities and conveniences though no amount was claimed by the appellant the Tribunal granted an amount of ₹ 10,000/-. Taking into account the nature of the injuries sustained by him as is revealed from Exts.A3 to A5 and also Ext.C1 we are of the view that owing to the permanent disability incurred by him as is revealed from Ext.C1 the appellant cannot enjoy his life as before. In such circumstances, despite the fact that the appellant had not claimed any amount under the head `loss of amenities and conveniences' we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to get an amount of ₹ 15,000/- more under that head.

¶40

In the light of the discussions as above, the appellant is entitled to get a total enhanced compensation of 28,250/-, over and₹ above the amount granted by the Tribunal. The amount thus enhanced

¶41

M.A.C.A.No.306/2011

¶42

¶43

will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The 3^rd respondent is directed to deposit the amount based on this judgment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. In case of failure on the part of the 3^rd respondent to deposit the amount within the above stipulated period the entire amount remaining to be paid will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum. There will be no order as to costs.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶46

Judge

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH Judge

¶49

TKS

C.H.Moidu,S/O.Ibrahim Hajee,Kozhikode v. Kumaran,S/O.Chekkotti,P.O.Kurinhaliyode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.H.Moidu,S/O.Ibrahim Hajee,Kozhikode v. Kumaran,S/O.Chekkotti,P.O.Kurinhaliyode

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

Joseph @ Dora Vs State of Kerala

Gnanasekar M., S/O. Michael Vs Jude Thadhewus & Another

Muhammed Rana Vs State of Kerala

K.v.Radhamani Vs Subhash K. & 2 Others

Ramachandran Pillai Vs Dr.T.S.Gopalakrishnan & Others

Alphonsa Sindhu.M.a Vs Rajasree.v.M