Allowed

S.Anilkumar v. Suresh.N.

Kerala HC2 Mar 2017MACA/2244/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the appeal of an injured Grade Lecturer against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. The Court quashed the disordered calculation of disability compensation, re-fixed it based on actual salary, and directed the insurance company to deposit the additional amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

The appellant was directed to be paid a further sum of Rs.1,70,342 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition.

S.Anilkumar Vs Suresh.N. — 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. 2244 of 2012 ()

¶8

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 924/2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 18-04-2012

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶10

S.ANILKUMAR S/O.P.K.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 50 YEARS , MYTHRI, PERUNNA P.O, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA)

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

1. SURESH.N.

¶14

S/O.NARAYANAN PILLAI, KAVERI HOUSE, PUZHAVATHU,

¶15

CHANGANACHERRY, PIN 686 101 (DELETED)

¶16

2. MOHANAN MENON ANADA BHAVAN, FATHIMAPURAM, CHANGANACHERRY, PIN 686 101. (DELETED)

¶17

3. THE BRANCH MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, PATHANAMTHITTA BRANCH, PIN 689 645.

¶18

(RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE DELTED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY, VIDE ORDER DATED 29/6/2016 IN I.A. NO.2149/2016 IN MACA NO.2244/2012)

¶19

RR3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) R BY SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

M.A.C.A.No. 2244 of 2012

¶23

Dated this the 2^nd day of March, 2017

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Shircy V, J.

¶26

The claimant who sustained injuries in a road traffic accident which occurred on 19.12.2003 had filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.4,70,000/-. He had been granted only an amount of Rs.1,79,760/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the same seeking enhancement, this appeal has been filed by him.

¶27

The accident and insurance coverage of the vehicle are not in dispute. So also the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant had sustained injuries while travelling in a jeep bearing Reg.No.KL-5M/9867 driven by the second respondent due to his rash and negligent driving through the public road has also not been challenged by the Insurance Company. The only question for determination in this appeal is whether just

¶28

MACA NO2244/2012

¶29

¶30

and reasonable compensation had been awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant.

¶31

The appellant was working as a Grade Lecturer in the N.S.S. College Changanachery at the time of the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant would point out the fact that even though he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.23,744/-, the Tribunal had awarded only an amount of Rs..57,770/- as the compensation for the disability caused to him taking his income as Rs.3000/-. So his salary has been totally ignored by the Tribunal and awarded only a meager amount under different heads especially under the head loss of disability by the Tribunal, is the grievance of the appellant. Ext.A14 is the salary certificate of the appellant. The Tribunal on the basis of the same has calculated the compensation as Rs.57,770/- for 73 days, the period he was on leave. The disability suffered by him as evident from Ext A12 certificate is 20%, but while

¶32

MACA NO2244/2012 3

¶33

computing the compensation for the disability sustained by him , the compensation was computed by taking a notional income of Rs.3,000/-. No doubt, such a computation is definitely erroneous and that has to be set aside and the compensation has to be re-fixed taking his salary as revealed from Ext.A14 certificate and accepted by the Tribunal itself. It is to be noted that the injuries sustained by him has been recorded in Ext.A11 wound certificate. Ext.A12 , the disability certificate was issued by the doctor who treated him in Medical Mission Hospital, Thiruvalla. Ext.A13 is the discharge summary card. He was aged about 48 years at the time of the accident. Since his age was 48, the correct multiplier will be 13. Till retirement there will be no loss to his income . Applying the split multiplier the disability has to be computed taking 50% of Rs.23,744/- for the period of 8 years, as for 5 years, there will be no loss of income. Since his total salary is Rs.23,744/-. 50% of the same

¶34

MACA NO2244/2012 4

¶35

has to be taken for computation (50% of 23,744 is Rs.11,872/-). So under the head loss of disability the amount of compensation will be Rs.2,27,942/(11,872x12x8x20%). After deducting the amount of Rs. 57,600 /- already granted the appellant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,70,342/-

¶36

We find absolutely no ground to interfere with the amount awarded under any other heads, as just and reasonable compensation have already been awarded by the Tribunal. So in short, the appellant is entitled to get a further amount of Rs.1,70,342 (Rupees one lakh seventy thousand three hundred and forty two only) The said amount will carry an interest at the rate of 7.5% 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.

¶37

On such deposit, the appellant is at liberty to

¶38

MACA NO2244/2012

¶39

¶40

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.

¶41

C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE

¶42

SHIRCY.V JUDGE

¶43

smm

S.Anilkumar v. Suresh.N.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Anilkumar v. Suresh.N.

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.

Krishnakumar Vs Laila

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

Chandran Vs Manikandan and 2 Others