Allowed

Raji.S v. Reji George

Kerala HC12 Jun 2018MACA/1254/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment enhanced compensation awarded to an injured driving instructor in a motor accident. The court held that the Tribunal underestimated disability and income, applying a higher multiplier and awarding additional amounts for loss of income, permanent disability, and extra nourishment.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.88,320/- awarded in addition to the Tribunal's award of Rs.1,14,340/-, plus interest and costs.

Raji.S Vs Reji George — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

MACA.NO. 1254 OF 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.733/2013 OF THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL- III, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 15-11-2017

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER :

¶8

RAJI S., PUTHUPARAMPIL GOKULAM HOUSE, EDATHITTA P.O., KODUMON VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.KOSHY SRI.SABU I.KOSHY SRI.ANIL GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 :

¶11

1. REJI GEORGE, THERAKATTAYATHU PUTHENVEEDU, KATTANAM P.O., MAVELIKARA, PIN-689121.

¶12

2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KIZHAKKEDATHU BUILDING, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689645.

¶13

BY SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD

¶14

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

P.D. RAJAN, J.

¶17

M.A.C.A. No.1254 of 2018

¶18

Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2018

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

This appeal is preferred against the award in O.P.(M.V.) No.733 of 2013 of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-III, Pathanamthitta by the injured. Appellant sustained injuries in a motor accident and the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,14,340/- (Rupees One Lakh Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred and Forty only) with interest and proportionate cost. Being aggrieved by that, the injured preferred this appeal.

¶21

There was no dispute with regard to the accident in the lower court. The insurer admitted the insurance of the vehicle KL-04/U-9135. Claimant did not adduce any oral evidence, but her documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A10. Respondent did not adduce any evidence.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the injured is an Instructor in a driving

¶23

M.A.C.A. No.1254 of 2018 2

¶24

school and was getting Rs.14,000/- per month. It is also contended that the disability certificate shows 6% disability to the injured, but the learned Tribunal took only 3% disability. The disability affected her earning capacity, hence she is entitled to get just amount as compensation.

¶25

In permanent injury case, the injured is entitled to get higher income than that in death case. The damages are to be assessed separately as pecuniary and special damages. The object is to compensate injury so far as money can compensate. When compensation is to be awarded for pain, suffering and loss of amenities in life, special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account. Amount of compensation for nonpecuniary loss is not easy to determine, but award must reflect that different circumstances have been taken into consideration. Hence, the multiplier method has to be followed to calculate pecuniary loss upon annual basis. In Yadava Kumar v. D.M. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [2010 (8) SCALE 567] Apex Court reiterated the

¶26

M.A.C.A. No.1254 of 2018 3

¶27

principle in relation to the assessment of damages for personal injuries cases as follows:

¶28

“ We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered.

¶29

In some cases for personal injury, the claim could be in respect of lifetime's earning lost because, though he will live, he cannot earn his living. In others, the claim may be made for partial loss of earnings. Each case has to be considered in the light of its own facts and at the end, one must ask whether the sum awarded is a fair and reasonable sum. The conventional basis of assessing compensation in personal injury cases, and that is now recognised mode as to the proper measure of compensation-is taking an appropriate multiplier of an appropriate multiplicand.”

¶30

The assessment of compensation in

¶31

permanent disability cases would differ from person to person according to the nature of injury. Vast discretion is vested with the court for assessment of just compensation in injury cases. There can be no uniform standard and yardstick provided for assessing such

¶32

M.A.C.A. No.1254 of 2018 4

¶33

compensation. When two persons sustain similar injury, that can attract the same compensation, but the heads under which, compensation can be attributed are truly amazing. The scope for awarding general damages and special damages are too wide for articulation. It is settled law that compensation for injury claims would be higher than that in death cases. The reason is that the injured has to suffer disability for the remaining period of his life. Generally in practical terms, it is found that discretion vested in assessment has to be on the basis of injury sustained to the victim and also on the nature of evidence in that case.

¶34

The insurer has no dispute with regard to the occupation of the appellant. She sustained fracture lower end of radius (right), fracture P2 2^nd toe right foot and fracture P1 3^rd toe right foot. Ext.A10 Disability Certificate shows that the appellant sustained 6% disability. Apex Court in Dixit Kumar and Ors. Vs. Om Prskash Goel (2017 ACJ 2057) held that, in the absence of any contra evidence, the income stated by the

¶35

M.A.C.A. No.1254 of 2018 5

¶36

claimant has to be considered. Hence, I take Rs.9,000/- as her monthly income and award the following additional amounts as enhanced compensation to the victim.

¶37

Loss of income for three months Rs.27,000/(9,000x3). The Tribunal awarded Rs.14,000/- and the balance is Rs.13,000/-. Compensation for Permanent disability is Rs.1,10,160/- (9000x12x17x6%). The Tribunal awarded Rs.42,840/- and the balance is Rs.67,320/-. In addition to that, an amount of Rs.3,000/- is awarded for Extra Nourishment and Rs.5,000/- is awarded for Medical Expenses. The total enhanced compensation comes to Rs.88,320/- (Rupees Eighty Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty only). Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to get an enhanced compensation of Rs.88,320/(Rupees Eighty Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty only) with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate cost in addition to Rs.1,14,340/- (Rupees One Lakh Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred and Forty only) awarded by the learned Tribunal. Insurer is directed to satisfy the award within

¶38

M.A.C.A. No.1254 of 2018 6

¶39

thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which it will carry 12% interest from the date of default.

¶40

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

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE

¶43

/True Copy/

¶44

¶45

P.A. To Judge

Raji.S v. Reji George

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raji.S v. Reji George

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Nanu Achry

Sadanandan.P.a. Vs Geetha Devi.I.P.

Jivin Vs the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.

Mohanan Pillai Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

K.C.Sabu @ Anandan Vs Reliance General Insurance Company Limited

Jalaja Vs the Managing Director