Allowed

Shoukathali v. C.K.Ramankutty

Kerala HC13 Jun 2018MACA/1098/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. It upheld the insurer's liability but set aside a baseless 5% deduction, recalculated permanent disability compensation based on a higher notional income, and awarded Rs 77,000 enhancement plus interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs 77,000 awarded; 5% deduction set aside; interest at 7.5% p.a. awarded.

Shoukathali Vs C.K.Ramankutty — Insurance | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

MACA.No. 1098 of 2015

¶6

OPMV 171/2012 of MACT MUVATTUPUZHA

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶8

SHOUKATHALI, S/O.BASHEER RESIDING AT PENDANATHU HOUSE, MILLUMPADY BHAGOM, PAIPRA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE.

¶9

BY ADVS.SMT.ANEY PAUL

¶10

SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

C.K.RAMANKUTTY

¶13

SENIYIL HOUSE, MUDAVOOR P.O, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN. 686 669.

¶14

BIJUMON, S/O.RAMANKUTTY SENIYIL HOUSE, MUDAVOOR P.O., VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN. 686 669.

¶15

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. PERUMBAVOOR, IN. 683 542.

¶16

R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

A.M.BABU, J.

¶19

- - - - M.A.C.A.1098 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated : 13^th June, 2018

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

1.It was on 9.9.2011 the accident. A motorcycle and a jeep collided. The appellant who was riding the motorcycle sustained injuries in the accident. The accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the jeep. The above are facts either admitted or proved.

¶23

Heard Smt.Aney Paul and Sri.K.Ajay Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant and the 3^rd respondent respectively.

¶24

The tribunal arrived at a figure of Rs 8,75,237/- as compensation. But it said that the appellant was entitled to 95% of the said amount only. The tribunal deducted 5% holding that the appellant was riding a motorcycle which lacked insurance coverage. It is not known under which provision of law the tribunal deducted 5%. There

¶25

MACA.1098/15

¶26

¶27

was no finding of any contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. The finding of the tribunal that 5% should be deducted was per se wrong.

¶28

4.The appellant was a student at the time of the accident. He claimed to have a business also. But he did not produce any evidence to prove the doing of any business by him. Therefore the tribunal had no go but to take a notional income. The notional income fixed by the tribunal was Rs 4,000/- per month. That was certainly on the lower side. The accident was in 2011. The notional income can be fixed at Rs 6,000/- per month. The entitlement of the appellant as compensation for permanent disability comes to Rs 2,07,360/- (Rs 6000 x 12 months x 18 multiplier x 16% disability). The amount of Rs 1,30,560/- awarded by the tribunal shall be deducted. The balance is Rs 76,800/-. The same is the enhancement. The amount can be rounded to Rs 77,000/-.

¶29

MACA.1098/15

¶30

¶31

The appeal is allowed with proportionate costs. The appellant is awarded Rs 77,000/- (seventy seven thousand only) as enhancement in compensation. The direction of the tribunal to deduct 5% of the compensation fixed by it stands set aside. The appellant is entitled to the amount withheld by the tribunal. The said amount as well as the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the application before the tribunal to the date of deposit. The 3^rd respondent shall deposit before the tribunal the enhanced compensation as well as the amount ordered to be withheld by the tribunal together with interest and proportionate costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶32

A.M.BABU Judge

¶33

Mrcs/13.6

Shoukathali v. C.K.Ramankutty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shoukathali v. C.K.Ramankutty

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

Vikas V.V. Vs State of Kerala

Anithakumari Vs Raveendran

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs T. Pushpa

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mariyamma Daniel

Manzoorali Vs P.v.Aboobacker

Khadeeja Vs Shiyam