Partly allowed

K.Vijayakumar v. a.K.Riyas

Kerala HC22 Oct 2018MACA/1764/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In appeals against Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awards following a fatal multi-vehicle collision, the Court enhanced compensation for deceased dependents and injured persons by applying Supreme Court precedents. The Court established equal liability between insurers and set aside the deduction for non-impleaded driver/owner.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation awarded for loss of dependency, pain and suffering, permanent disability, and funeral expenses against the insurers. Deduction for non-impleaded parties set aside. Appeal by mino

K.Vijayakumar Vs a.K.Riyas — Medical Negligence | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2018/ 30TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

MACA.NO. 1762 OF 2007

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.1868/2001 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI DATED 13.02.2006

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN O.P.(M.V) :

¶8

RAJASREE, W/O K.VIJAYAKUMAR, ARJUN COTTAGE, MORAYOOR, P.O.KONDOTTY, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI. A.N.SANTHOSH

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.P.(M.V.) :

¶11

1 A.K.RIYAS, S/O MOIDU, PUTHUKKUDIYIL HOUSE, KALLACHI P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶12

2 ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O.AMMED, KANHIRAPARAMBATH HOUSE, VISHNU MANGALAM, EYYAKODE AMSOM & DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶13

3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., AI MUBARACK BUILDING, EDODI, BADAGARA.

¶14

4 T.DEVADASAN, S/O.CHOYIKUTTY, KOOVAYIL HOUSE, PULIKKAL, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

5 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. JASEELA COMPLEX, MANJERI.

¶16

BY ADVS. SRI.A.R.GEORGE SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.10.2018 ALONG WITH MACA. NO.1764/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

MACA.NO. 1762 OF 2007 AND

¶19

¶20

CONNECTED CASES

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶22

PRESENT

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶24

MONDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 30TH ASWINA, 1940

¶25

MACA.NO. 1764 OF 2007

¶26

AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.1869/2001 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI DATED 13.02.2006

¶27

APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN O.P.(M.V.) :

¶28

K.VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O P. RAMAN NAIR, ARJUN COTTAGE, MORAYOOR, P.O.KONDOTTY, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶29

BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH

¶30

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.P.(M.V.) :

¶31

1 A.K.RIYAS, S/O MOIDU, PUTHUKKUDIYIL HOUSE, KALLACHI P.O, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶32

2 ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O AMMED, KANHIRAPARAMBATH HOUSE, VISHNU MANGALAM, EYYAKODE AMSOM & DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶33

3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., AI MUBARACK BUILDING, EDODI, BADAGARA.

¶34

MACA.NO. 1762 OF 2007 AND

¶35

¶36

CONNECTED CASES

¶37

4 T.DEVADASAN, S/O CHOYIKUTTY, KOOVAYIL HOUSE, PULIKKAL, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶38

5 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. JASEELA COMPLEX, MANJERI.

¶39

BY ADVS. SRI.A.R.GEORGE SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN

¶40

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.10.2018, ALONG WITH MACA. NO.1762/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶41

MACA.NO. 1762 OF 2007 AND

¶42

¶43

CONNECTED CASES

¶44

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶45

PRESENT

¶46

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶47

MONDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 30TH ASWINA, 1940

¶48

MACA.NO. 1765 OF 2007

¶49

AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.1867/2001 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI DATED 13-02-2006

¶50

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN O.P.(M.V.) :

¶51

1 K.VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O P.RAMAN NAIR, ARJUN COTTAGE, P.O.MORAYOOR, KONDOTTY, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶52

2 RAJASREE, W/O K.VIJAYAKUMAR, ARJUN COTTAGE, P.O.MORAYOOR, KONDOTTY, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶53

BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH

¶54

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.P.(M.V.) :

¶55

1 A.K.RIYAS, S/O MOIDU, PUTHUKKUDIYIL HOUSE, KALLACHI P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶56

2 ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O AMMED, KANHIRAPARAMBATH HOUSE, VISHNU MANGALAM, EYYAKODE AMSOM & DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶57

3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AI MUBARACK BUILDING, EDODI, BADAGARA.

¶58

MACA.NO. 1762 OF 2007 AND

¶59

¶60

CONNECTED CASES

¶61

4 T.DEVADASAN, S/O CHOYIKUTTY, KOOVAYIL HOUSE, PULIKKAL, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶62

5 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. JASEELA COMPLEX, MANJERI.

¶63

BY ADVS. SRI.A.R.GEORGE SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN

¶64

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.10.2018 ALONG WITH MACA. NO.1762/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶65

MACA.NO. 1762 OF 2007 AND

¶66

¶67

CONNECTED CASES

¶68

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶69

PRESENT

¶70

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶71

MONDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 30TH ASWINA, 1940

¶72

MACA.NO. 1767 OF 2007

¶73

AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.1706/2001 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI DATED 13-02-2006

¶74

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN O.P.(M.V.) :

¶75

1 SIVASANKARAN C.E. , S/O GOVINDA PANICKER, RESIDING AT THIRUVALI AMSOM, P.O.THIRUVALI, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶76

2 A.INDIRA, W/O SIVASANKARAN C.E., RESIDING AT THIRUVALI AMSOM, P.O.THIRUVALI, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶77

3 SUDHISH.A., S/O SIVASANKARAN C.E., RESIDING AT THIRUVALI AMSOM, P.O.THIRUVALI, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶78

4 RAJESH, S/O SIVASANKARAN C.E., RESIDING AT THIRUVALI AMSOM, P.O.THIRUVALI, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶79

BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH

¶80

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.P.(M.V.) : 1 A.K. RIYAS, S/O MOIDU,

¶81

¶82

MACA.NO. 1762 OF 2007 AND

¶83

CONNECTED CASES

¶84

PUTHUKKUDIYIL HOUSE, KALLACHI P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶85

2 ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O AMMED, KANHIRAPARAMBATH HOUSE, VISHNU MANGALAM, EYYAKODE AMSOM & DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶86

3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., AI MUBARCK BUILDING, EDODI, BADAGARA.

¶87

4 T.DEVADASAN, S/O CHOYIKUTTY, KOOVAYIL HOUSE, PULIKKAL, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶88

5 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., JASEELA COMPLEX, MANJERI.

¶89

BY ADVS. SRI.A.R.GEORGE SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN

¶90

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.10.2018, ALONG WITH MACA. NO.1762/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶91

MACA.NO. 1762 OF 2007 AND

¶92

¶93

CONNECTED CASES

¶94

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶95

PRESENT

¶96

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶97

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 30TH ASWINA, 1940

¶98

MACA.NO. 1768 OF 2007

¶99

AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.1707/2001 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI DATED 13-02-2006

¶100

APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN O.P.(M.V.):

¶101

ANIRUDH VIJAY (MINOR), AGED 12 YEARS, S/O.K.VIJAYAKUMAR, REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN- FATHER K.VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O.P.RAMAN NAIR, ARJUN COTTAGE, P.O.MORAYOOR, KONDOTTY, ERNAD, TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶102

BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.BABY

¶103

SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH

¶104

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.P.(M.V.) :

¶105

1 A.K. RIYAS, S/O MOIDU, PUTHUKKUDIYIL HOUSE, KALLACHI P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶106

2 ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O. AMMED, KANHIRAPARAMBATH HOUSE, VISHNU MANGALAM, EYYAKODE AMSOM & DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶107

3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., AL MUBARACK BUILDING, EDODI, BADAGARA.

¶108

MACA.NO. 1762 OF 2007 AND

¶109

¶110

CONNECTED CASES

¶111

4 T.DEVADASAN, S/O.CHOYIKUTTY, KOOVAYIL HOUSE, PULIKKAL, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶112

5 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. JASEELA COMPLEX, MANJERI.

¶113

BY ADVS. SRI.A.R.GEORGE SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN

¶114

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.10.2018, ALONG WITH MACA. NO.1762/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶115

MACA.NO. 1762 OF 2007 AND

CONNECTED CASES

JUDGMENT

These appeals are preferred against the award in O.P.(M.V.) Nos.1867 of 2001, 1868 of 2001, 1869 of 2001, 1706 of 2001 and 1707 of 2001 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri by the claimants. O.P.(M.V.) No.1867 of 2001 (M.A.C.A No.1765 of 2007) was preferred by the dependants of the deceased Arjun Vijay and O.P.(M.V) No.1706 of 2001 (M.A.C.A No.1767 of 2007) was preferred by the legal heir of the deceased Jayasankar. The other claim petitions were preferred by the injureds. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.1,73,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Three Thousand only) in O.P.(M.V.) No.1706 of 2001, Rs.5,450/- (Rupees Five Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty only) in O.P.(M.V.) No.1707 of 2001, Rs.1,83,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Three Thousand only) in O.P.(M.V.) No.1867 of 2001, Rs.57,570/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy only) in O.P.(M.V.) No.1868 of 2001 and Rs.44,167/- (Rupees Forty Four Thousand One Hundred and

¶120

MACA.NO. 1762 OF 2007 AND

¶121

CONNECTED CASES 11

¶122

Sixty Seven only) in O.P.(M.V.) No.1869 of 2001. Hence these appeals.

¶123

Claimants case in the lower court was that on 08.04.2001, while the deceased Arjun Vijay, Jayasankar and other injureds were travelling in a jeep KL-10/F-6229 from Kozhikode-Morayur, when they reached at Feroke Chungam, another jeep KL-11/F-855 driven in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite side collided with the vehicle and due to the impact of the collision, the vehicle KL-11/F-855 went ahead and hit against a mini lorry KL-10/E-3492. The injureds were removed to hospital, but Arjun Vijay and Jayasankar succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment at Medical College Hosptial, Kozhikode. The drivers and owners of both vehicles were ex parte in the lower court. Claimants contended that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the drivers of KL-11/F-855 and KL10/E-3492. The insurers admitted the insurance of the offending vehicles. The insurer of KL-11/F-855 attributed negligence against the other two vehicles and also contended

¶124

MACA.NO. 1762 OF 2007 AND

¶125

CONNECTED CASES 12

¶126

that the driver, owner and insurer of KL-10/F-6229 were also the necessary parties. The insurer of KL-10/E-3492 admitted the policy but denied the liability. The above O.P.(M.V.)s were tried jointly. The evidence consist of oral testimony of PW1 to PW4 and documentary evidence of Exts.A1 to A27. The 3^rd party documents were marked as Exts.X1 and X2.

¶127

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the appellants in M.A.C.A. 1765 of 2007 are the dependants of the deceased Arjun Vijay who was aged 12 years at the time of accident and the appellants in M.A.C.A. No.1767 of 2007 are the legal representatives of the deceased Jayasankar who was aged 20 years at the time of accident. Just amount was not awarded by the Tribunal in the above cases and 1/3^rd was deducted from the total compensation on the ground that the appellants failed to implead the driver, owner and insurer of KL-10/F-6229. Appellants also contended that the injured and deceased are the passengers in KL-10/F6229 and Feroke Police charge sheeted the driver of KL-11/F855. Therefore, the liability is upon the insurer of the vehicle

¶128

MACA.NO. 1762 OF 2007 AND

CONNECTED CASES

KL-11/F-855.

Learned counsel appearing for the insurer of KL-11/F-855 contended that the liability has to be apportioned equally among the two offending vehicles because the Mini Lorry hit against KL-11/F-855. The evidence of the claimants show that the accident was not due to the negligence of the 2^nd respondent, the driver of KL-11/F-855 alone. Hence, the liability has to be apportioned among the tort feasors.

¶133

Learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent contended that the liability was fastened upon both insurers equally and no reason to disturb the findings of the Tribunal.

¶134

It would be relevant and reasonable to mention the facts leading to the accident. It is an admitted fact that the accident was due to the involvement of three vehicles i.e., KL11/F-855, KL-10/E-3492 and KL-10/F-6229. Even though the insurer of both vehicles contested the matter in the lower court and contended that the accident was due to the negligence of the three vehicles, Police charge sheeted the driver of KL-11/F-855 alone. The learned Tribunal observed

¶135

MACA.NO. 1762 OF 2007 AND

¶136

CONNECTED CASES 14

¶137

that, considering the lie of the road, both jeep drivers and the driver of the mini lorry were equally negligent for the accident. But, both drivers have no dispute about that point and no appeal has been preferred against that finding. Here, the insurer of KL-10/F-6229 was not arrayed as a party. Moreover, the driver and owner of the above vehicles were also not arrayed as parties. If that be the position, the learned Tribunal fastened the liability equally upon the insurer of both vehicles i.e., R3 and R5. In the absence of any dispute with regard to apportionment by the insurers, that finding is confirmed.

¶138

In fatal accident case, the measure of damage is towards the pecuniary losses, which is to be suffered by the dependents as a result of the death. But the assessment of damages to the dependents is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables. The life expectancy of the deceased and the dependents are the major factors. Secondly, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remaining period

¶139

MACA.NO. 1762 OF 2007 AND

¶140

CONNECTED CASES 15

¶141

of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependents during that period is also relevant. The chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependents may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better job and earned more income also have to be considered by the Tribunal.

¶142

8. Apex Court in National Insurance Company V.

¶143

Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 622 (SC)] held as follows:

¶144

In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-

¶145

(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santhosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.

¶146

(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.

¶147

(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was

¶148

MACA.NO. 1762 OF 2007 AND

¶149

¶150

CONNECTED CASES

¶151

between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

¶152

(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.

¶153

(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced herein before.

¶154

(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.

¶155

(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.

¶156

(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.

¶157

In M.A.C.A No.1767 of 2001, the deceased was aged

¶158

20 years at the time of accident. He pass Chain Survey Course and was getting Rs.4,000/- per month. The dependants are entitled to get just amount as compensation and hence his monthly income is taken as Rs.3,500/-. In view of Pranay Sethi (Supra), 40% of the income (3500x40%=1,400) has to

¶159

CONNECTED CASES 17

¶160

MACA.NO. 1762 OF 2007 AND

¶161

be added towards future prospects and the income comes to Rs.4,900/-. He is a bachelor, hence half of the amount has to be deducted and the dependants are entitled to get Rs.5,29,200/- (4900x12x18x1/2) for Loss of dependancy. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.1,50,000/- on that head. The balance is Rs.3,79,200/-. Along with that, Rs.13,000/- is awarded for Funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards Loss of estate in view of Pranay Sethi (Supra) . The total enhanced compensation is Rs.4,02,200/- (Rupees Four Lakh Two Thousand Two Hundred only).

¶162

In M.A.C.A. No.1765 of 2007, the deceased was aged 12 years. He was a student of 6^th standard at Air Port School, Calicut. Apex Court in Kishan Gopal and Another v. Lala and Others [(2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 244] held as follows :

¶163

In view of the aforesaid reasons, it would be just and reasonable for us to take his notional income at Rs.30,000/- and further taking the young age of the parents, namely the mother who was about 36 years old, at the time of accident, by applying the legal principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC) = (2009) 6 SCC 121), the

¶164

MACA.NO. 1762 OF 2007 AND

¶165

¶166

CONNECTED CASES

¶167

multiplier of 15 can be applied to the multiplicand. Thus, 30,000 x 15 = 4,50,000 and 50,000/- under conventional heads towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, last rites as held in Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas ((1994) 2 SCC 176), which is referred to in Lata Wadhwa's case and the said amount under the conventional heads is awarded even in relation to the death of children between 10 to 15 years old. In this case also we award Rs.50,000/- under conventional heads. In our view, for the aforesaid reasons the said amount would be fair, just and reasonable compensation to be awarded in favour of the appellants.

¶168

In view of Kishan Gopal's case (Supra), the notional yearly income is taken Rs.30,000/-. While applying the multiplier as 15 in this case, the total dependency compensation will be Rs.4,50,000/- and along with that, Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards conventional heads and the total compensation will be Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only). The learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,83,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Three Thousand only) and the balance amount is Rs.3,17,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Seventeen Thousand only) (5,00,000-1,83,000).

¶169

In M.A.C.A. No.1768 of 2007, the injured was a minor and the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.5,450/- (Rupees Five Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty only) as compensation,

¶170

MACA.NO. 1762 OF 2007 AND

¶171

CONNECTED CASES 19

¶172

in view of Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, this appeal is not maintainable and it is dismissed.

¶173

In M.A.C.A. No.1764 of 2007, the appellant was aged 42 years at the time of accident. He was a driver and getting Rs.7,500/- per month. He sustained a fracture to 7^th rib anterior end. X-ray investigation shows fracture ulna shaft and fracture 5^th meta carpel. The above injuries were not considered by the Tribunal, hence the following additional amounts are awarded as enhanced compensation to the victim. Learned Tribunal took Rs.1,250/- as his income. Since he is a driver, his monthly income is fixed as Rs.4,000/- and he is entitled to get Rs.24,000/- (4000x6) for six months. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- on that head and the balance is Rs.9,000/-, Pain and sufferings Rs.25,000/-, Loss of amenities Rs.25,000/-. The total enhanced compensation is Rs.59,000/- (Rupees Fifty Nine Thousand only). Just amount was awarded under other heads and no interference is necessary.

¶174

In M.A.C.A. No.1762 of 2007, the injured was aged 32

¶175

MACA.NO. 1762 OF 2007 AND

¶176

CONNECTED CASES 20

¶177

years at the time of accident. She was a tuition teacher. She sustained a permanent disability of 11%. I fix her monthly income as Rs.2,000/- and award the following amounts as enhanced compensation. Loss of income for six months Rs.12,000/- (2000x6). Pain and sufferings Rs.25,000/-. Loss of amenities Rs.20,000/-. She sustained 11% disability. While adding 40% (2000x40%) of the income towards future prospects in view of Pranay Sethi (Supra) , she is entitled to get Rs.59,136/- (2800x12x16x11/100) towards permanent disability. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.26,400/- on that head and the balance is Rs.32,736/-. The total enhanced compensation is Rs.89,736/- (Rupees Eighty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Six only).

¶178

The insurers of both vehicles R3 and R5 are equally liable to pay the enhanced compensation with 9% interest and proportionate cost within 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. The driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle were not impleaded as parties is not a

¶179

MACA.NO. 1762 OF 2007 AND

¶180

¶181

CONNECTED CASES

¶182

ground to deduct 1/3^rd from the total award amount, hence that finding is set aside. There is a delay of 463 days in filing the above appeals and the appellants are not entitled to get any interest for the delay period.

¶183

Sd/- P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE

¶184

¶185

/True Copy/ P.A. To Judge

K.Vijayakumar v. a.K.Riyas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Vijayakumar v. a.K.Riyas

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

A.Vijayakumar Vs Natarajan

Sreenivasan Vs Midhun

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Lalitha K.G.

Sundaran Vs Pratheesh

Rajasree Vs a.K.Riyas

K.Vijayakumar Vs a.K.Riyan