Allowed

N.P.Abdullakoya v. Sudeer and Another

Kerala HC20 May 2016MACA/941/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Motor Accidents Claims Appeal concerned an enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The High Court deemed the Tribunal's finding on the claimant's income and calculation of benefits, such as loss of earning and bystander expenses, to be inadequate and re-assessed the compensation.

What did the court decide?

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was enhanced by Rs. 30,000. The first respondent was directed to pay the enhanced amount within three months with interest at 7%.

N.P.Abdullakoya Vs Sudeer and Another — Insurance | 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 20TH DAY OF MAY 2016/20TH VAISAKHA 1938

¶7

MACA.No. 941 of 2011 ( )

¶8

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1408/2006 of M.A.C.T., KOZHIKODE DATED 17-05-2010

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER IN OP(MV):

¶10

N.P.ABDULLAKOYA

¶11

S/O.SAIDALI, PUTHIYANGADI, PALLIKANDY,

¶12

HOUSE NO.25, P.O.PAVANGAD, KOZHIKODE.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN

¶14

SMT.P.Y.SHEHEERA

¶15

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV):

¶16

SUDEER, S/O.DARMAJAN MANJAMKUZHI HOUSE, P.O.NENMENI S.BATHERY, WYNAD-673121

¶17

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, NOOR COMPLEX, P.B.NO.811, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673001

¶18

R2 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW

¶19

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

C.T. RAVIKUMAR &

¶21

K. P. JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.

¶22

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

¶23

M.A.C.A. No.941 OF 2011

¶24

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

¶25

Dated this the 20^th day of May, 2016

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Jyothindranath, J.

¶28

This appeal is filed by the injured-claimant in O.P.(MV). No.1408 of 2006 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

¶29

Kozhikode. The challenge is against award dated 17.05.2010, made therein.

¶30

2.The case of the appellant is that on 25.08.2005 at about 10 p.m., while he was standing on the side of Mavoor Road, in front of Sagar Hotel, a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-12A-5590 came and knocked him down and he sustained grievous injuries. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle, the appellant herein filed the above referred claim petition for

¶31

M.A.C.A.941/2011

¶32

¶33

an amount of 1,00,000/- before the Tribunal arraying the RC owner of the vehicle as respondent No.1 and the insurance company as respondent No.2. The Tribunal awarded a sum of 50,385/-. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal preferred.

¶34

3.When the appeal came up for hearing, the counsel appearing for the appellant submitted before us that the insurance company was exonerated by the Tribunal on the ground that, at the relevant point of time, the vehicle was not insured with the company. It is also submitted before us that the appellant was a Head load worker by profession and the Tribunal considered only `2,500/- as his monthly income for calculation purposes. It is also submitted that on other heads also, only inadequate compensation was awarded by the Tribunal.

¶35

4.We heard the counsel for the insurance company. The counsel submitted before us that there was no insurance policy for the vehicle and the company was exonerated. There is nothing to interfere with the said finding.

¶36

M.A.C.A.941/2011

¶37

¶38

5.The factual facts relevant for deciding this appeal are as follows:-

¶39

Even though on various heads the appellant claimed a total amount of 2,66,000/-, the claim was limited to 1,00,000/-. The accident occurred on 25.08.2005 at 10 p.m. The vehicle involved is a motor cycle. Even though notice was sent to the first respondent, the owner-cum-rider of the vehicle, there is no appearance before this Court. After going through the award, we feel that the monthly income of the appellant/claimant considered by the Tribunal is on a lower side. As per the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2011) 13 SCC 236], it can be seen that the Apex Court considered an income of 4,500/- in the case of a coolie who met with an accident in the year 2004. Thus, it will only be just and proper to consider at least 4,500/- as the monthly income of the appellant for calculation purposes. Even though the claimant was treated as inpatient for 37

¶40

M.A.C.A.941/2011

¶41

¶42

days, only a sum of `3,700/- is seen awarded towards bystanders

¶43

expenses. We are of the opinion that, at least 200/- should have been taken towards expenses of bystander, for a day. When monthly income is considered as 4,500/-, on the head of loss of earning, the compensation awarded is inadequate. Thus, the compensation

¶44

awarded is re-assessed by granting additional amounts as follows:-

¶45

Heads of claims	Amount claimed (in Rupees)	Amount allowed (in Rupees)	Amount enhanced (in Rupees)
Transportation to hospital	3000	300	700
Extra nourishment	2000	300	nil
Treatment expenses	80000	4085	nil
Bystanders expenses	nil	3700	3700
Loss of earning	40000	5000	4000
Pain and suffering	30000	10000	nil
Permanent disability	80000	27000	21600 (4500x12x50x 6/100=48600- 27000)
Total	266000 limited to 1,00,000	50385	30000 =====

¶46

M.A.C.A.941/2011

¶47

¶48

The total additional compensation awarded will come to 30,000/-. Thus, it is held that the appellant/petitioner will be entitled for an enhanced amount of 30,000/- over and above the compensation already awarded. The first respondent is directed to pay the amount within three months of this judgment. Additional compensation will bear interest on the very same rate awarded by the Tribunal, i.e., 7%, from the date of the petition till realisation. There will be no order as to costs.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

K. P. JYOTHINDRANATH

(JUDGE)

spc/

M.A.C.A.941/2011

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

M.A.C.A.941/2011

JUDGMENT

September, 2010

M.A.C.A.941/2011 8

N.P.Abdullakoya v. Sudeer and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.P.Abdullakoya v. Sudeer and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Soman.K.C. Vs Vishala

Navas Vs G. Ragupathy

Anila Vs the Manager

Vinod Vs Aji

Murali T.K Vs the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

E.v.Johny Vs Vasanthi and Others