Partly allowed

Kaja Hussain v. v.Sankara Menon

Kerala HC23 Feb 2017MACA/2271/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident appeals filed to enhance compensation. Court accepted Tribunal's findings on disability but enhanced compensation based on reasonable notional monthly income of Rs.4,000, bystander expenses, and increased amounts for pain and suffering.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs. 29,020/- including interest at 7.5% p.a. Response insurance directed to deposit amount within two months.

Kaja Hussain Vs v.Sankara Menon — 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 & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/4TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

MACA.No. 2271 of 2010 ( )

¶6

-------------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) NO.1127/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD DATED 30-07-2010

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER :

¶8

KAJA HUSSSAIN,S/O.CHELLAN, PANTHAMPADAM, EDATHARA, PALAKKAD - 678 612.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.BALAGOPAL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. V.SANKARA MENON,AGE NOT KNOWN , S/O.LATE RAMAN NAMBOODIRI, RESIDING AT 11/232, LEELALAYAM,AMATTIKARA,KUMARANELLUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 552.

¶12

2. MOHAMMED SAMEER.K, AGE NOT KNOWN, S/O.YAHU.K, KORANGIL HOUSE,ERAVAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 505.

¶13

3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., 'PRANAVAM' MELE PATTAMBI, PATTAMBI 679 306.

¶14

R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW R1 BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P R3 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

AMV

C.K.ABDUL REHIM

SHIRCY.V, JJ.

..................................................

¶21

M.A.C.A No.2271 of 2010

¶22

...................................................

¶23

Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2017 JUDGMENT

¶24

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶25

Claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad in O.P.(MV) No.1127 of 2006 is the appellant herein, seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded. There is no dispute with respect to the findings on the aspects of negligence as well as on the liability of the 3^rd respondent.

¶26

The appellant sustained fracture on his right humerus, fracture on right femur, head injury and chest wall contusion. He was hospitalized for 18 days. Ext.A11 certificate was produced to prove that the injuries sustained to the appellant had resulted in causing a permanent disability, the extent of which was assessed as 8%. The Tribunal discarded Ext.A11 for the reason that it is issued not by a medical board, nor it contains any satisfactory details regarding the injuries and the basis of assessment of the disability. The Tribunal also observed that the certificate is not proved through examining the Doctor who had issued the same. However, the Tribunal adopted 4% disability and awarded compensation for continuing permanent disability on that basis.

¶27

M.A.C.A No.2271 of 2010

¶28

¶29

Even though learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal ought to have adopted the extent of disability as certified in Ext.A11, we are not persuaded to accept the same, because Ext.A11 does not even contain the details of the injuries sustained. Nor it contains any description with respect to the difficulties now experienced by the appellant. The certificate bluntly says that, currently as a result of the injury sustained the appellant is having 8% permanent disability. We concur with the findings of the Tribunal that Ext.A11 cannot be accepted.

¶30

However, we take note of the fact that the Tribunal had taken only a notional income of Rs.2,500/- per month for the purpose of computing compensation for permanent disability. Even though the appellant claimed that he was working as a salesman, no proof regarding his occupation and income was produced. But considering the fact that the accident took place during the year 2006 and on considering the socio-economic situations prevalent at that time, we are of the opinion that a sum of 4,000/- can₹ reasonably be adopted as notional monthly income. When calculated on that basis the amount of compensation under the head of permanent disability need to be re-fixed at 30,720/-,₹ which will entitle the appellant for an enhancement of 11,520/-.₹

¶31

M.A.C.A No.2271 of 2010

¶32

¶33

The tribunal had not awarded any amount towards bystander expenses. It has come out in evidence that the appellant was continuing treatment as inpatient for 18 days. We are inclined to allow a sum of 4,500/- on that count (250x18). The amount₹ awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain and sufferings as well as under loss of amenities and enjoyment in life, are on the lower side. We are inclined to increase the amount awarded for pain and suffering to 25,000/-, which will entitle the appellant₹ for a further enhancement of 6,000-. The amount of 8,000/-₹ ₹ awarded towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life is also increased to 15,000/-, which will add a sum of 7,000/- further₹ ₹ to the total compensation. We do not find any ground to interfere with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded under other heads. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled for a total enhancement of Rs.29,020/-.

¶34

Hence, the above appeal is allowed in part. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal will stand enhanced by a further sum of 29,020/-, which will carry interest @7.5% p.a.,₹ from the date of the claim petition till realization. The 3^rd respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the amount within a period of two months.

¶35

M.A.C.A No.2271 of 2010

¶36

¶37

It is made clear that on such deposit the appellant will be entitled to approach the Tribunal seeking withdrawal and the Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders considering the question of permitting withdrawal.

¶38

Sd/- (C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE)

¶39

sd/- (SHIRCY.V., JUDGE)

¶40

AMV/27/02/2017

¶41

/TRUE COPY/

¶42

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kaja Hussain v. v.Sankara Menon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaja Hussain v. v.Sankara Menon

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

Subaida Vs Midhun Gopinath @ Midhun

S. Nagappan Chettiar Vs Midhun Gopinath @ Midhun

Royal Sundarama Alliance Vs Sonu Sudharman

Janaki Vs P.Prasad

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs P.Sheela

Rajakumari Vs Jayarajan