Allowed

Sreejith Kallukothiya Parambath v. Mahesh

Kerala HC14 Mar 2018MACA/1795/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Motor Accident Claims Appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Guided by the Pranay Sethi judgment, the Court revised the monthly notional income from `3,000 to `4,500. It also corrected the degree of disability from 10% to 28% and increased the interest rate from 7.5% to 9% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to `3,40,960/- with interest at 9% per annum; additional compensation withdrawn.

Sreejith Kallukothiya Parambath Vs Mahesh — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

MACA.No. 1795 of 2012

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 31-12-2011 IN OPMV 1065/2006 of M.A.C.T., THALASSERY

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

SREEJITH KALLUKOTHIYA PARAMBATH, S/O. NANU, VALIYA PARAMBATH, PERUNGATHUR AMSOM, MEKKUNNU DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.V.BINOY RAM

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. MAHESH, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, KANGATTU VEEDU, PERINGATHUR AMSOM, KARIYAD DESOM KARIYAD P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, PIN-

¶12

2. K.T.K. RAGHUNATH, S/O.KUMARAN, KIZHAKEDATH THAZHA, PERINGADI, KARIYAD P.O. PIN-

¶13

3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, BO THALASSERY, PB NO.97 ASHEEQUAA TOWERS, NARANGAPURAM, THALASSERY-670 101.

¶14

R3 BY ADVS. SRI JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKADU (NO MEMO) SRI.K.KESAVANKUTTY BY SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

DST

¶17

K. HARILAL, J.

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A.No.1795 of 2012(F)

¶19

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2018

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.1065 of 2006 of the Additional Motor Accidents

¶22

Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') , Thalassery and the aforesaid Original Petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for bodily injuries and consequential disablement thereof suffered by the appellant.

¶23

The Insurance Company opposed the said application, disputing the quantum of compensation and the cause of accident; but admitted the coverage of the insurance policy. After considering the evidence adduced by both parties, the Tribunal passed the impugned award granting an amount of `12,27,600/-, as compensation to the appellant. The

¶24

M.A.C.A.No. 1795 of 2012(F)

¶25

inadequacy and correctness of the compensation are challenged in this appeal.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶27

appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent Insurance Company.

¶28

It is contended that the quantum of

¶29

monthly income determined by the Tribunal is very low, in view of the decision of Supreme Court reported in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others [2017(5) KHC 350 (SC)]. Secondly, it is contended that the Tribunal has went wrong by reducing the degree of disability from 28% to 10%, without any reasoning. Thirdly, it is contended that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the

¶30

rate of interest at the rate of 7.5% instead of 9%.

¶31

On the other hand, the learned counsel for

¶32

the Insurance Company advanced arguments to justify the quantum of monthly income determined by the

¶33

M.A.C.A.No. 1795 of 2012(F)

¶34

-: 3 :-

¶35

Tribunal and the rate of interest and the reduction of the degree of disability.

¶36

In view of the arguments at the Bar, the

¶37

short point that arises for consideration is, is the Tribunal justified in determining the monthly income, the degree of disability and the rate of interest. It is not disputed that the appellant was aged 24 years at the time of accident and according to him, he was a painter by profession. It is true that no documentary evidence has been produced by the appellant to substantiate his monthly income. In the absence of evidence, the Tribunal is justified in taking monthly notional income. But, `3,000/- was taken as monthly income, for the

¶38

accident, which was occurred in the year 2005. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi 's case (supra), the Tribunal is not justified in fixing monthly notional income at `3,000/-. In

¶39

M.A.C.A.No. 1795 of 2012(F)

¶40

-: 4 :-

¶41

Pranay Sethi 's case (supra), the Apex Court held that in the case of an accident occurred in the year 2004, 3,500/- to 4,500/- can be taken as monthly notional income. Since the accident had occurred in the year 2005, the monthly notional income would stand enhanced to 4,500/- from 3,000/- per month. Thus, the appellant is entitled to get 18,000/-, under the head 'loss of earnings' for four months [4,500 x 4]. The additional compensation under this head is 6,000/-

¶42

Going by paragraph 15 of the impugned

¶43

award, it is seen that the Medical Board of District Hospital, Kannur has issued Ext.X1 report stating that the appellant has permanent disability of 20%. But, the Tribunal has reduced degree of disability from 28% to 10% for the reason that the Doctor was not examined and it was not specifically stated as to whether it was whole body disability or partial

¶44

M.A.C.A.No. 1795 of 2012(F)

¶45

disability. This Court is of the view that where a disability certificate was issued by the Medical Board, the examination of Doctor, who issued the Medical Certificate is not necessary. So also, when it is specifically stated in the certificate that physical permanent disability is 25% to 28%, it cannot be reduced, in the absence of any contra evidence. Thus, the Tribunal went wrong by reducing the degree of disability from 28% to 10%. Certainly, the degree of disability would stand enhanced to 28%, as shown in the disability certificate. In the above view, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of 2,72,160/-[4,500 x 12 x 18 x 28/100]. The additional compensation under the said head is 2,07,360/-[2,72,160 - 64,800] Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellant is `3,40,960/- [6,000 + 2,07,360 + 1,27,600]. As regards interest, the Tribunal has

¶46

M.A.C.A.No. 1795 of 2012(F)

¶47

granted 7.5% interest only. Having regard to the inadequacy, the interest will stand enhanced to 9% per annum. It is needless to say, the entire amount of compensation would carry interest, as stipulated by the Tribunal. The appellant is allowed to withdraw the additional compensation also. All other findings of the Tribunal wills stand undisturbed and operative.

¶48

This Motor Accident Claims Appeal is allowed accordingly to the above extent.

¶49

K. HARILAL, JUDGE

¶50

DST

¶51

//True copy// P.A. To Judge

Sreejith Kallukothiya Parambath v. Mahesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreejith Kallukothiya Parambath v. Mahesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vellamparambil Muhammed Vs Kundani Jamsheera

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Abdul Salam

Shriram Genral Insurance Company Limited Vs Remadevi

Kozhissery Moyinkutty Vs Muhammed N

Madhu Vs Vijayan Nair

Fr.George Manjakkal Vs Biju Uthup