Dismissed

Khadeeja v. Shiyam

Kerala HC13 Jun 2018MACA/1514/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the insurer’s contentions that compensation for permanent disability and loss of future earnings is not recoverable when the appellant remains in government service. The court dismissed the appeal as there was no ground to enhance the remaining compensation heads.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed with no costs awarded. The earlier award regarding permanent disability remains untouched as the insurer did not appeal.

Khadeeja Vs Shiyam — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶3

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

¶4

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 200/2011 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR DATED 23-01-2014

¶5

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER

¶6

KHADEEJA,AGED 39 YEARS W/O.LATE ABDUL MAJEED,KAPPAN HOUSE,KANNAMANGALAM.P.O,VENGARA,TIRURANGADI TALUK, PIN-673318.

¶7

BY ADV.SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

¶8

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1. SHIYAM,AGED 30 YEARS S/O.ABDUL SALAM,EDUPADIKKAL HOUSE,KUDAVOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 034(DRIVER).

¶10

2. A HARA ONE,

¶11

GULF LAND,KUZHUVALAM,MAMAM,ATTINGAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.695 034(OWNER).

¶12

3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, AMALJYOTHI COMPLEX,KADAPPAKKADA,KOLLAM,KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN-691008(INSURER).

¶13

R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) R3 BY ADV. SMT.K.S.SANTHI R3 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN

¶14

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

¶15

A.M.BABU, J.

¶16

..........................................

¶17

M.A.C.A.No.1514 of 2014

¶18

........................................... Dated 13^th day of June, 2018

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

It was on 13.5.2010 the accident. The appellant sustained injuries. She was a passenger in a car. The car was hit by a tempo traveller. The accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the tempo traveller. The said vehicle was insured with the third respondent. The above are facts either admitted or proved.

¶21

Heard Sri.C.M.Mohammed Iquabal and Smt.K.S.Santhi, the learned counsel for the appellant and the third respondent respectively.

¶22

The appellant was assessed to have a disability of 26%. The assessment was made by the medical board attached to the district hospital, Manjeri. The tribunal had taken the disability only at 18%. This is one of the grievances of the appellant. Her another grievance is that for calculating the compensation for permanent disability the tribunal did not take the salary of the appellant into consideration. Yet another grievance is that the tribunal awarded only Rs 15,000/- as compensation for pain and sufferings and Rs 5,000/- only as

¶23

¶24

M.A.C.A.No.1514 of 2014

¶25

compensation for loss of amenities of life.

¶26

The appellant is admittedly a teacher in a government school. Therefore she is not at all entitled to any compensation for disability unless she is unable to work as a teacher. The apex court holds that there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of loss of future earnings if the claimant continues in government service. It is held so in Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar (2011 ACJ 1) . The appellant admittedly continues in government service. Therefore she is not entitled to get any compensation for permanent disability. The amount of Rs 3,24,000/- awarded by the tribunal was something the appellant was not entitled to. Since the insurer did not appeal, the said amount awarded by the tribunal cannot be touched by this court.

¶27

Since Rs 3,24,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal as compensation for permanent disability, to which the appellant was not at all entitled to, I do not see any reason to enhance compensation under the heads of pain and sufferings and loss of amenities of life. The appeal deserves only a dismissal.

¶28

Dismissed. No costs.

sd/-

A.M.BABU

Judge

sks/13.06.2018

M.A.C.A.No.1514 of 2014

Khadeeja v. Shiyam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khadeeja v. Shiyam

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

Vikas V.V. Vs State of Kerala

Anithakumari Vs Raveendran

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs T. Pushpa

Shoukathali Vs C.K.Ramankutty

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mariyamma Daniel

Manzoorali Vs P.v.Aboobacker