Allowed

Unnikrishnan v. Bindul @ Bindil T.D.

Kerala HC23 Oct 2018MACA/1693/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident appeal, the High Court of Kerala enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant for injury causing amputation of a toe. The Court granted additional sums for disability, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, ordering the respondent insurer to pay ₹38,000 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.38,000 awarded with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition.

Unnikrishnan Vs Bindul @ Bindil T.D. — 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 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

MACA.No. 1693 of 2010

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1122/2006 of M.A.C.T OTTAPPALAM DATED 10-08-2009

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

UNNIKRISHNAN AGED 47 YEARS S/O.KUTTAN, VATHIATH HOUSE, VANNERIMUKKU,, PADIYAM VILLAGE, ANTHIKKAD P.O., THRISSUR.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 BINDUL @ BINDIL T.D. S/O.DHARMARAJAN, THATHPUZHA HOUSE,, CHAZOOR, JANATHA MDS, NATTIKA, THRISSUR 680514.

¶12

2 BEENA NANDAN W/O.NANDAKUMAR KOZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHAZOOR, ANHIKKAD,, THRISSUR 680 512.

¶13

3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. SIMIS COMPLEX, KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR- 68O512., POLICY NO.100606/31/02/00008431, VALID FROM, 12.8.2006 TO 11.8.2007.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.K.KESAVANKUTTY

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MACA 1693/10

JUDGMENT

The appeal is for the enhancement of

¶20

compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶21

The appellant was riding a bicycle on 23.09.2006 and when he reached the place of occurrence, an autorickshaw, driven, owned and insured by the respondents 1 to 3 respectively, knocked him down, causing some injuries, resulting in amputation of the right little toe, which led to the claim petition filed before the Tribunal.

¶22

Evidence adduced consists of the oral

¶23

testimony of the claimant as PW1, besides the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A10. No evidence, either oral or documentary was adduced on part of

¶24

the respondents. Based on the materials on record,

¶25

the Tribunal fixed negligence solely on the part of the driver of the autorickshaw. Since the policy was admitted, after fixing a total compensation of Rs.30,450/- under various heads, it was directed to be satisfied with interest at the rate of 8% per

¶26

MACA 1693/10

¶27

¶28

annum from the date of the petition. This according

¶29

to the appellant is inadequate and hence the appeal.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant

¶31

as well as the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company.

¶32

The learned counsel for the appellant

¶33

points out that, despite amputation of the right little toe, as taken note of by the Tribunal in

¶34

paragraph 9 of the award, no compensation has been awarded under this head. It is also stated that

¶35

going by the schedule in the Workmen's Compensation Act, taking the same as a guideline, 3% permanent disability is liable to be fixed. This submission is sought to be opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company, pointing out that no disability certificate has ever been produced by the claimant either before the Tribunal or even before this Court. However, considering the fact that the

¶36

appellant was a man of 43 years, stated as working as a Manager in a toddy shop (this fact was deposed

¶37

MACA 1693/10

¶38

¶39

by PW1 and certified as per A10), this Court finds

¶40

it appropriate to award a lump-sum compensation of

¶41

Rs.25,000/ - under this head. It is awarded accordingly. The amount awarded by the Tribunal

¶42

towards pain and suffering also requires to be enhanced to a small extent and this Court finds it appropriate to award a further sum of Rs.7,000/- under this head. Similarly, in respect of the loss

¶43

of amenities, a further sum of Rs.6,000/- is awarded.

¶44

Thus, the total additional compensation

¶45

payable comes to Rs.38,000/ - (Rupees Thirty Eight

¶46

thousand only) which shall be satisfied with

¶47

interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition, till satisfaction, except for the period

¶48

of 272 days covered by the delay, which has been condoned today. The amount due shall be deposited by the respondent Insurance Company at the earliest, at

¶49

any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶50

MACA 1693/10

¶51

¶52

Appeal stands disposed of.

¶53

SD/-

¶54

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

Unnikrishnan v. Bindul @ Bindil T.D.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unnikrishnan v. Bindul @ Bindil T.D.

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

Gopalan Vs T.C.Devarajan

Sumathy Vs T.C.Devarajan

Krishna Kumar Vs M.Assu and Others

Velayudhan Vs M.a.Lohithakshan

Bose @ Chandrabose Vs the President Kadappuram-Manthala & Ors.

Revamma @ Rema Vs Udayakumar & Others