Allowed

Saju Jose v. Nijin Varghese

Kerala HC2 Feb 2017MACA/2444/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ThisMotor Accident ClaimsAppeal allows the injured to claim additional compensation. The High Court modified the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award by granting extra indemnity for dental treatment, hospital transport, treatment, extra nourishment, and pain and suffering.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of ₹13,000/- with 7.5% interest and proportionate cost was awarded to the appellant.

Saju Jose Vs Nijin Varghese — 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

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/13TH MAGHA, 1938

¶5

MACA.No. 2444 of 2015 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 950/2012 of MACT PALA DATED 02-07-2014

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

SAJU JOSE S/O. JOSEPH V.J, aged 35, VARAVUNKAL HOUSE, KAYYOOR P.O., ULLANADU KARA, BHARANANGANAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.CYRIAC KURIAN SRI.BABY THOMAS SMT.BINITHA JAMES

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. NIJIN VARGHESE S/O. VARGHESE, KANIYAMTHARA THAZHACHAYIL HOUSE, VAIKAPRAYAR, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM - 686 141.

¶12

2. SUNNY ABRAHAM, S/O. ABRAHAM, THOTTICHIRAYIL HOUSE, PRIYADARSINI, VAIKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 141.

¶13

3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KOTTAYAM,

¶14

KOTTAYAM DISTRICT- 686 141.

¶15

R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW R2 BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON R BY SMT.K.S.SANTHI

¶16

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

¶17

acd

¶18

P.D. RAJAN, J.

¶19

M.A.C.A.No.2444 of 2015

¶20

Dated this the 2^nd day of February, 2017

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal has been preferred by the injured against the award in O.P.(MV)No.950/2012 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. The appellant's case is that on 11.05.2012 at 12.30 p.m., he was travelling in KL-05/V-4590 bus driven by the 1^st respondent through Arayankavu-Kanjiramattom road, when it reached at the place of occurrence, the bus went out of control of the first respondent and hit against another vehicle, as a result, the appellant sustained injury. Immediately, he was removed to hospital from where he took treatment. The 3^rd respondent insurance company admitted the insurance of the vehicle. The appellant did not adduce any oral evidence. His documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A8. The learned tribunal awarded total sum of 31,500/- with 7.5 % interest with₹

¶23

M.A.C.A.No.2444/2015 2

¶24

proportionate cost. Being aggrieved by that, the appellant preferred this appeal.

¶25

It is true that in a motor accident case, the injured is entitled to get just compensation. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that Ext.A8 medical bill for 17,000/- was not considered by the tribunal. The₹ learned tribunal granted 8,000/- for loss of earnings,₹ ₹1000/- for transport hospital, ₹500/- for extra nourishment, 1,000/- for treatment expenses, 15,000/-₹ ₹ for pain and suffering and 6,000/- for dental treatment,₹ thereby total amount of 31,500/-. Every heads were not₹ properly considered by the tribunal. For extra nourishment ₹500- only was granted by the tribunal. After sustaining injury to his teeth, he was not in a position to take hard food. He needs extra liquid food for his livelihood, therefore additional 2,000/- is granted for extra nourishment. Total₹ medical bill was for 18000/-. Tribunal awarded only₹

¶26

₹6000/- alone. Hence, he is also entitled to get full medical

¶27

M.A.C.A.No.2444/2015 3

¶28

expense and I award additional 11,000/- and no increase is₹ necessary on other heads. In the circumstances, the appellant is entitled to get additional compensation of ₹13,000/- with 7.5% interest from the date of petition till realisation of the amount with proportionate cost. The 3^rd respondent is directed to produce crossed demand draft for the additional compensation of 13,000/- with 7.5% interest₹ with proportionate cost within thirty days from today. The appellant is not entitled to get any interest for the delay period of 289 days.

¶29

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

¶30

P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.

¶31

acd

Saju Jose v. Nijin Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saju Jose v. Nijin Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Antany Vs S.I of Police

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs K.T.Thomas

Alance C.Scaria Rep. by Guardian Father Scariachan Vs Thomas

Biju Varghese Vs John

Itty Avira Mani Vs Sri Brainy C Varghese

P.Anilkumar Vs C.Venugopalan Nair