Allowed

George v. the Manager

Kerala HC13 Feb 2017MACA/125/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident appeal, the High Court examined the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The Court enhanced the disability compensation and loss of amenities based on medical reports showing 12% disability, 60% hearing loss, and facial palsy, while addressing the calculation of loss of income and interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation for disability, loss of income, pain and sufferings, and loss of amenities; direction to insurer to deposit enhanced amount with interest from date of petition.

George Vs the Manager — Medical Negligence | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/24TH MAGHA, 1938

¶5

MACA.No. 125 of 2017 () -----------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1583/2004 of MACT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 09-10-2009

¶6

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶7

GEORGE,

¶8

S/O.VADAKKUMPADAN OUSEPH, ANTHRAKKAPADAM DESOM, PARIYARAM VILLAGE.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶11

THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CHALAKUDY BRANCH, PIN-680 121 R1 BY ADV. SRI.TITUS MANI R BY SMT.K.S.SANTHI

¶12

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

acd

¶14

P.D. RAJAN, J.

¶15

M.A.C.A.No.125 of 2017

¶16

Dated this the 13^th day of February, 2017

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This appeal is preferred by the appellant against the award in O.P.(MV)No.1583/2004 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The appellant's case is that on 09.01.2004 while he was riding motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-8/G 3840, the bus bearing registration No.KL-13/A 4203 came from behind and hit on the motor cycle, as a result, he was thrown away and sustained serious injuries. Immediately, he was removed to hospital, subsequently, he filed the above petition in the tribunal. The respondent insurance company admitted the insurance of the vehicle. In the tribunal, no oral evidence has been adduced, hence Exts.A1 to A8 and Ext.X1 were marked on the side of the petitioner. The learned

¶19

M.A.C.A.No.125/2017 2

¶20

tribunal awarded total compensation of 55,550/- with 7%₹ interest from the date of petition till realisation of the amount and with proportionate cost. Being aggrieved by that, the injured approached this Court.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that meagre amount was awarded for permanent disability. The disability assessed by the Medical Board shows that he has 12% disability. Ext.A3 is the wound certificate issued from ST. James Hospital, Chalakudy which shows hematoma on the forehead, abrasions on the shoulder and forearm and fracture of the left temporal bone with edema. Ext.A4 is the wound certificate issued from Amritha Institute of Medical Science and Ext.A5 discharge summary, which shows that the appellant was diagnosed as a case of head injury involving fracture of base of skull, linear fracture of left temporal bone, multiple soft tissue injury and facial palsy. ExtA6 is the CT investigation report, which reads as follows:

¶22

M.A.C.A.No.125/2017

¶23

¶24

“a) No evidence of intra or extra axial intracranial hemorrhage/collection. No definite focal areas of cerebral contusion.

¶25

b) Fracture involving left temporal bone extending to mastoid air cells. Minimal pneumocephalus in left middle cranial fossa. Right parietal scalp hematoma. Minimal opacification in right superior mastoid air cells is suggested.

¶26

C) Normal ventricles and subarachnoid spaces.

¶27

d) Clear visualised paranasal sinuses.”

¶28

It is true that doctors of the Medical Board,

¶29

Medical College Hospital, Thrissur issued Ext.X1 disability certificate certifying 12% neurological disability. As per the audiogram report, the appellant is having 60% hearing loss for both ears. Therefore, he is entitled to get just amount for disability. The tribunal granted three months income at the rate of 2000/- per month for loss of income, but for₹ assessing disability, it was reduced to 1500/-, which is not₹

¶30

fair. Therefore, he is entitled to get compensation on the basis of income of 2500/-per month. The loss of income₹ for six months is 15,000/-. The tribunal had already₹ granted 6,000/-, hence, he is entitled to get balance₹ ₹9,000/- for loss of earnings. The tribunal granted

¶31

M.A.C.A.No.125/2017 4

¶32

₹12,000/- for pain and sufferings, which is enhanced to ₹15,000/-, thereby 3,000/- is enhanced for pain and₹ sufferings. The tribunal granted 5,000/- for loss of₹ amenities, which is enhanced to 10,000/-, thereby 5,000/-₹ is the additional amount for loss of amenities. The tribunal granted compensation of 17,300/- for disability. The₹ disability is assessed and enhanced as 2500x12x8x12 /100= ₹28,800/-, the difference is ₹11,500/-(28800-17300). Therefore, he is entitled to get additional compensation of ₹28,500/- ,(in addition to the amount of 55,550/-), with₹ 7% interest from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate costs. The appellant is not entitled to get interest for the delay period of 2520 days. The respondent insurance company is directed to produce cross demand draft for the entire amount.

¶33

M.A.C.A. is disposed of as above.

¶34

P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.

¶35

acd

George v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George v. the Manager

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

Raveendran Vs P.a.Sajeer

Rajan Pillai Vs Sanilkumar R

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs C.R.Kishoremon and Others

Ananthan Vs Laiju Baby and Others

Aneesh @ Unni Vs Anilkumar

Baiju Vs Vijayakumar