Allowed

Reneesh.K.T. v. Abdul Saleem

Kerala HC25 Sept 2018MACA/13/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held the compensation awarded in a motor accident case was inadequate. modifying the notional monthly income from Rs.4000 to Rs.4500 and adjusting the disability multiplier, the Court enhanced the disability compensation. It also awarded lump sums for loss of amenities, adjusted past earnings, and increased bystander expenses, granting a total additional compensation of Rs.26,330 wi

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 26,330/- with interest at 7.5% from the claim date was awarded and ordered to be deposited by the insurance company within one month.

Reneesh.K.T. Vs Abdul Saleem — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 3RD ASWINA, 1940

¶5

MACA.No. 13 of 2012

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 171/2009 of M.A.C.T.,KOZHIKODE

¶7

APPELLANT:

¶8

RENEESH.K.T., S/O.SEKHARAN, AGED 32, RESIDING AT MANDOTH KAYYANNIMMAL THAZHATH HOUSE, P.O.KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

ABDUL SALEEM, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT CHALIL KUZHIYIL HOUSE, P.O.MUTTANCHERY, NARIKKUNI, KOZHIKODE-673 013 (DRIVER OF THE JEEP BEARING REG.NO.KL-12/A-759).

¶13

2 MUHAMMED KOYA HAJI K.P. KP/VII/505, ARECANUT CO KALPETTA, WAYANAD 673516 (OWNER OF THE JEEP BEARING REG.NO.KL-12/A-759)

¶14

3 THE NEW INIA ASSURANCE CO LTD.,TRIPURI BUILDING, EAST NADAKKAVU-673 008, KOZHIKODE(INSURER OF THE JEEP BEARING REG.NO.KL-12/A-759).

¶15

BY ADVS.SRI ZIYAD REHMAN (B/O) SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the

¶19

Tribunal is under challenge in this appeal.

¶20

On 29.06.2009, the appellant was riding a

¶21

motorcycle, when there occurred a collision between the

¶22

MACA.No. 13 of 2012

¶23

¶24

motorcycle and jeep driven, owned and insured by the respondents 1 to 3 respectively. This led to the claim petition filed before the Tribunal. After analysing the materials on record, negligence was fixed solely on the part of driver of the jeep insured by the 3^rd respondent Insurance company.

¶25

The appellant sustained fracture to both bones of the left leg as reveled from from the medical records; with a permanent disability of 6 % certified by the Medical Board as per Ext. C1. Though there was a claim that the appellant was working as a lorry driver, since no evidence was adduced, notional income was fixed as Rs.4000/- and disability compensation was worked out reckoning the multiplier of '17'. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.93,635/- as the total compensation under different heads, which was directed to be satisfied with interest as specified.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned standing counsel for the insurance

¶27

company.

¶28

Though a vehement submission was made by the

¶29

MACA.No. 13 of 2012

¶30

¶31

learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant

¶32

was aged only 32 years at the time of accident and that Rs.5000/- ought to have been adopted by the Tribunal as the notional monthly income, it is objected to by the learned counsel for the respondent Insurance company, pointing out that the appellant/claimant did not mount the box to depose anything as to the avocation or monthly income. However, considering the relevant facts and figures, age of the appellant and also the date of accident [having occurred in the year 2009], this Court finds it appropriate to effect slight modification, refixing the monthly income as Rs. 4500/-. It is however to be noted that the Tribunal reckoned the multiplier of 17, which actually ought to have been '16' considering the age of the appellant as 32 years. On reworking the compensation for disability, it comes to Rs. 4500 x 12 x 16 x 6/100 = Rs.51,840/-. Since the

¶33

Tribunal has already granted a sum of Rs. 48,960/-, the balance compensation payable under this head will come to Rs.2,880/-.

¶34

It is seen that no amount has been paid by the

¶35

MACA.No. 13 of 2012

¶36

¶37

Tribunal under the head loss of amenities and enjoyment

¶38

of life, in view of the certified permanent disability of 6%. Considering the relevant factors, this Court finds it fit and proper to grant Rs.20,000/ - under this head. The Tribunal has granted loss of earnings for a

¶39

period of 3 months. In view of the enhancement of notional monthly income as ordered by this Court, the appellant is entitled to get an additional sum of Rs.1,500/- under this head. The Tribunal has granted a

¶40

sum of Rs.3900/- towards the bystander's expenses for 39 days @ Rs.100/- per day. The accident having occurred

¶41

in the year 2009, this Court finds it appropriate to

¶42

reckon a sum of Rs.150/- per day and accordingly, the

¶43

appellant is entitled get an additional sum of Rs.1950/- under this head.

¶44

On reworking the compensation as above, the

¶45

appellant is entitled to get an additional compensation

¶46

of Rs.26330/- [Rupees Twenty Six thousand Three hundred

¶47

and Thirty only] with interest @ 7.5 % from the date of

¶48

the claim petition. Since the policy is admitted by the Insurance Company, the amount due shall be deposited

¶49

MACA.No. 13 of 2012

¶50

¶51

before the Tribunal by the respondent Company, within

¶52

one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶53

Appeal stands disposed of.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶56

JUDGE

¶57

kmd

Reneesh.K.T. v. Abdul Saleem

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reneesh.K.T. v. Abdul Saleem

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

K.Radhakrishnan Nair Vs Shanavas

Lillykutty Mathai Vs Sirosh K.S.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Poulose K.V.

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Jiju C.Cherian

Baby Joseph Vs P.J.Atnony

Ali Kunhi Vs Abdu Salim