Allowed

Chandran v. Manikandan and 2 Others

Kerala HC2 Mar 2017MACA/1500/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Motor Accident Claims Appeal, the High Court held the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to be inadequate regarding income assessment and disability percentage. The Court enhanced the compensation by fixing monthly income at Rs.4000/- and disability at 21%, granting a total enhancement of Rs.1,17,400/-.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation award to the tune of Rs.1,17,400/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of claim till realisation.

Chandran Vs Manikandan and 2 Others — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2017/11TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶7

MACA.No. 1500 of 2010 ( )

¶8

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)No. 101/2006 of MOTOR .ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM DATED 23-04-2010

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶10

CHANDRAN,S/O.MADHAVAN,VADAKKETHIL PUTHENVEEDU,SRK NAGAR, PO PALAPPURAM,OTTAPPALAM, TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1. MANIKANDAN,S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KUNNINMEL HOUSE, ATTOR, WADAKKANCHERRY,TRICHUR, DISTRICT (DRIVER OF THE MINILORRY BEARING, REGISTRATION NO.KL-9-C/5415).

¶14

2. K.RAJEEV KUMAR,S/O.RAMAN,SREERAM NIVAS,SHORNUR,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN 679 122, (OWNER OF THE MINILORRY BEARING REGISTRATION, NO.KL-9-C/5415).

¶15

3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., FAIZAL BUILDING MAIN ROAD,OTTAPALAM, (INSURER OF THE MINILORRY BEARING REGISTRATION, NO.KL-9-C/5415).

¶16

R,R3 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH THOMAS

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

C.K.ABDUL REHIM & SHIRCY.V,JJ

¶19

M.A.C.A.No.1500 of 2010

¶20

-----------------------------------------------Dated this the 2^nd day of March, 2017

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Shircy V,J.

¶23

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P(MV)No.101/2006 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam this appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ cliamant

¶24

He claimed before the Tribunal an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation, but only an amount of Rs.1,38,000/- was awarded, is the grievance of the appellant. His case is that he was earning a monthly income of Rs.6000/-. But the compensation awarded by taking his monthly income as half of the same is absolutely inadequate and hence he prays to enhance the amount. Of course it could be seen that the injury sustained by him are grave and serious in nature and he

¶25

MACA No.1500/2010

¶26

¶27

had suffered whole body disability of 20.90. But the Tribunal has taken only 12% to compute the compensation

¶28

On 29.11.2005 at about 5.a.m the appellant was travelling in a mini lorry bearing Registration No.Kl-9C/5415 driven by the first respondent . The vehicle met with an accident as it hit on another lorry proceeding in front of it due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the first respondent. The appellant has sustained severe injuries including fracture.

¶29

The accident and insurance coverage of the vehicle are not in dispute. Like that there is no challenge regarding the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the side of the 1^st respondent,by the insurance company. We heard both sides in detail.

¶30

The injured was a mason aged 40 years at the time of the accident. According to him he was earning a monthly income of Rs.6000/-, but the Tribunal

¶31

MACA No.1500/2010

¶32

¶33

has reckoned it as only Rs.3000/-. So also, though he suffered whole body disability of 21% the compensation was fixed taking it as 12%. Considering the entire facts involved in this case, especially that the accident was of the year 2005, and the gravity of the injuries suffered by him, we think that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is definitely on the lower side at least under some of the heads and the same have to be enhanced. Hence the monthly income even in the absence of proof is fixed as Rs.4000/- as the amount fixed by the Tribunal as Rs.3000/- is so meagre. So under the head loss of earnings as the appellant could not do any work and remain idle at least for a period of four months we fix the compensation as Rs.16,000/-(4000 x4) which would entitle him to get a further amount of Rs.4000/-. Under the head pain and sufferings only an amount of Rs.12,000/- has been granted. We enhance it as Rs.25,000/- which would entitle the appellant to get a further amount of Rs.13,000/-. So also as loss of

¶34

MACA No.1500/2010

¶35

¶36

amenities only Rs.6000/- has been granted though he suffered so much inconveniences and difficulties due to the injuries . We enhance the amount as Rs.20,000/which would entitle him to get a further amount of Rs.14,000/-. As mentioned above, though the doctor who treated the appellant has assessed his whole body disability as 20.90, the Tribunal has reduced it to 12% without assigning any valid reason. Of course the Tribunal has taken the correct multiplier as 15 and hence we refix the compensation under the head loss of disability as Rs.1,51,200 (4000x12x15x21%), which would entitle the appellant to get a further amount of Rs.86,400/- after deducting an amount of Rs.64,800/-. Thus the appellant is entitled for a total enhancement of Rs.1,17,400/--.

¶37

Therefore the above appeal is disposed of accordingly. The appellant is entitled for enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,17,400/(Rupees one lakh seventeen thousand four hundred only ). The said amount will carry an interest at the rate

¶38

MACA No.1500/2010

¶39

¶40

of 8% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation. The 3^rd respondent/ Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within a period of two months from today.

¶41

On such deposit, the appellant is at liberty to approach the Tribunal seeking withdrawal of the amount. If such an application is filed, the Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders considering the question of permitting withdrawal.

¶42

C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE

¶43

SHIRCY.V JUDGE

¶44

smm

Chandran v. Manikandan and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandran v. Manikandan and 2 Others

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

M.R.Rajendran Vs the Managing Director

K.K.Sadanandan Vs the M.D., Kerala State Co-Op.Consumer

Vasu Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

S.Anilkumar Vs Suresh.N.

Krishnakumar Vs Laila

Lathef v K @ Abdul Latheef Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.