Allowed

Kuriakose Abraham v. the Divisional Manager, Icici Lombord General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Kerala HC25 Jun 2018MACA/1552/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award of Rs. 90,750. The Court held that the compensation was meagre given the severity of the tendon tear and, relying on the multiplier method principles, enhanced the award by Rs. 10,000 to reflect pain, suffering, and loss of amenities. The insurer was directed to discharge the enhanced liability within thirty

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs. 10,000 to a total of Rs. 1,00,750. Insurer directed to pay within 30 days.

Kuriakose Abraham Vs the Divisional Manager, Icici… — 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

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

MACA.NO. 1552 OF 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.1837/2015 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM DATED 11-07-2017

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER :

¶8

KURIAKOSE ABRAHAM, S/O.ABRAHAM, KORATHARA HOUSE, KUZHIMATTOM KARA, PANACHIKKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.M.JOSHI

¶10

SMT.SIJI K.PAUL

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/3RD RESPONDENT :

¶12

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ICICI LOMBORD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MUMBAI-400100.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.R.AJITH KUMAR (128/84)

¶14

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

P.D. RAJAN, J.

¶17

-----------------------M.A.C.A No.1552 of 2018

¶18

---------------------------------Dated this the 25^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.1837 of 2015 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam by the injured. Appellant sustained injuries in a motor accident on 06.09.2015. There was no dispute with regard to the accident in the lower court. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle KL-33/A3272 were ex parte. The insurer admitted the insurance of the vehicle. Claimant did not adduce any oral evidence, but his documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A8. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.90,750/(Rupees Ninety Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only) with 8% interest and proportionate cost. Being aggrieved by that, the injured preferred this appeal.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that a meagre amount was awarded by the Tribunal as compensation. Ext.A5 is the Discharge summary, which shows that the injured sustained

¶22

M.A.C.A No.1552 of 2018 2

¶23

contusion right shoulder, contusion right knee and Supra spenacious tendon tear. Appellant is a Civil Police Officer.

¶24

In Yadava Kumar v. D.M. National

¶25

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:

¶26

“ 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.

¶27

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.”

¶28

The assessment of compensation in

¶29

permanent disability cases would differ from person to

¶30

M.A.C.A No.1552 of 2018 3

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

M.A.C.A No.1552 of 2018 4

¶34

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.

¶35

The learned Tribunal awarded the following amounts as compensation.

¶36

Loss of earning Rs.32,300/-, Transport to hospital Rs.2,000/-, Extra nourishment Rs.750/-, Damage to clothing and articles Rs.1,000/-, Bystander expenses Rs.2,000/-, Medical expenses Rs.7,700/-, Pain and sufferings Rs.25,000/-, Loss of amenities Rs.20,000/-. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.90,750/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only). It is true that there was severe pain to the tendon injury and the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- for pain and sufferings. Considering the

¶37

M.A.C.A No.1552 of 2018 5

¶38

nature of injury and treatment, an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- will be just towards the injuries. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to get an enhanced compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) in addition to Rs.90,750/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only) awarded by the learned Tribunal. The insurer is directed to satisfy the award within a period of 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.

¶39

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

¶40

Sd/- P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE

¶41

/True Copy/

¶42

P.A. To Judge

¶43

Kuriakose Abraham v. the Divisional Manager, Icici Lombord General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuriakose Abraham v. the Divisional Manager, Icici Lombord General Insurance Co. Ltd.

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

Mohammed Sheriff Vs Fathima Shifa @ Shifa

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Prabeesh

Bindu Vs Prasad.K.P.

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Ajay G.S.

Subhalaja Vs S.Najim

Eldhose C.Cherian Vs Babu.K.