Allowed

Griju Joseph v. Benson Joseph and Others

Kerala HC7 Jun 2018MACA/1346/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant appealed against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award for injuries sustained in a 2006 accident. The High Court revised compensation, awarding a lump sum of Rs.25,500 with interest and cost, finding the Tribunal undercompensated for pain, suffering, and lost earnings.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.25,500 awarded with 7% interest and proportionate cost.

Griju Joseph Vs Benson Joseph and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

MACA.No. 1346 of 2011

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1517/2009 of PRINCIPAL M.A.C.T.,KOZHIKODE DATED 28-05-2010

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶8

GRIJU JOSEPH,AGED 30 YEARS,RESIDING AT KAZHUKANOLIKKAL HOUSE,P.O CHAMAL,THAMARASSERY,, KOZHIKODE.

¶9

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

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. BENSON JOSEPH,S/O.P.C.THOMAS,AGE NOT KNOWN,AT PATHIYIL HOUSE,P.O ATHIYODI,, KOORACHUNDU,KOZHIKODE 673 003.

¶12

2. MATHEW JOSEPH,S/O.ANNAMMA,AGE NOT KNOWN AT MUNDAKKAPADAVIL HOUSE,P.O ATHIYODI,, KOORACHUNDU,KOZHIKODE 673 003.

¶13

3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,SEEMA BULDING,, G.H ROAD, KOZHIKODE 673 001.

¶14

R-R3 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH THOMAS

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

BNG

¶17

P.D.RAJAN, J

¶18

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A No.1346 of 2011

¶19

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7^th day of June, 2018

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is preferred against the award in O.P(MV) No.1517/2009 of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode by the injured. The appellant sustained serious injuries in a motor accident on 23.11.2006 at about 1.30 pm and the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.37,938/- with interest and cost as compensation. Being dissatisfied by that amount, the injured preferred this appeal.

¶22

The insurer admitted the insurance of the vehicle. The driver and owner of the vehicle did not dispute the accident in the lower court. Documents produced by the claimant were marked as Exts.A1 to A4.

¶23

In Yadava Kumar v. D.M. National

¶24

Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010 (8) SCALE 567) Apex Court reiterated the principle in relation to the assessment of damages for personal injuries cases as follows:

¶25

“ We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for

¶26

M.A.C.A No.1346 of 2011

¶27

-2-

¶28

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

In injury cases the damages are to be assessed separately

¶31

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 non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine, but award must reflect that different circumstances have been taken into consideration.

¶32

M.A.C.A No.1346 of 2011

¶33

-3-

¶34

Hence, the multiplier method has to be followed to calculate pecuniary loss upon annual basis.

¶35

The assessment of compensation in

¶36

permanent disability case 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 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.

¶37

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶38

M.A.C.A No.1346 of 2011

¶39

-4-

¶40

appellant contended that the injured is an electrician by profession and was getting Rs.8,000/- per month, but no documents were produced in the lower court to prove the income. If that be the position, in the absence of any contra evidence, I take monthly income of Rs.5,000/- per month. The appellant is entitled to get three months loss of income, ie., Rs.15,000/-. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.4,500/-. The balance amount is Rs.10,500/-. Along with that, Rs.5,000/- is awarded for pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- for loss of amenities. The appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.25,500/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand and Five Hundred only) with 7% interest and proportionate cost in addition to the award amount. The insurer is directed to satisfy the award amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which it will carry 12% interest from the date of default.

¶41

This appeal is disposed of, accordingly.

Sd/-

P.D.RAJAN

JUDGE

bng

Griju Joseph v. Benson Joseph and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Griju Joseph v. Benson Joseph and Others

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

Joy Thomas Vs Sunny Thomas

Susanna Joseph Vs the Branch Manager, the New India Assurance Company Ltd.

M/S.Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Muneer C.V.

National Insiurance Company Vs Srinavasan

Appu Nair Vs T.S.Rajesh Kumar

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Nanu Achry