Allowed

S.Babu v. Moorthy and Another

Kerala HC21 Mar 2018MACA/1845/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This motor accident claim appeal challenged the inadequacy of compensation for pain and suffering and loss of earnings. The single judge enhanced the compensation amount due to the appellant's injury duration and occupation, ordering withdrawal of further interest sought.

What did the court decide?

Compound appeal was allowed and compensation amount enhanced by the court to Rs. 11,500/-, amounting to total compensation of Rs. 62,261/-.

S.Babu Vs Moorthy and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶4

MACA.No. 1845 of 2011

¶5

IN OPMV 260/2002 of M.A.C.T.,PUNALUR DATED 25-11-2006

¶6

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶7

S.BABU, S/O.SUBBAIYAN ACHARY ALIAS SUBBAN ACHARY, MATTHUVILA VEEDU,, THRIKKANNAMANGAL, KOTTARAKKARA

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. S.MOORTHY,

¶11

T.C.NO.24/1890,NEAR D.P.I.JUNCTION,, THYCADU

¶12

P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶13

2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN R BY SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

K. HARILAL, J.

¶19

MACA No. 1845 of 2011

¶20

Dated this the 21^st day of March, 2018

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The appellant is the petitioner in O.P. (MV) No. 260 of 2002 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Punallur. The aforesaid Original Petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the bodily injuries and the disablement thereof suffered by him in a road traffic accident. He claimed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation under various heads of claim. The 2^nd respondent insurance company opposed the said application disputing the quantum of compensation claimed under various heads of claim but admitted the coverage of the insurance policy. After considering the evidence on record, the tribunal passed the impugned award granting an amount of Rs. 50,761/- with interest as

¶23

MACA No. 1845 of 2011

¶24

-2-

¶25

compensation to the appellant. The inadequacy of the quantum of compensation granted under the heads loss of earnings and pain and suffering are mainly challenged in this appeal.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶27

Though the quantum of compensation under various heads of claim are challenged in this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant mainly contented that the monthly income determined by the tribunal is very low and the quantum of compensation granted under the head pain and suffering is inadequate in view of the fact that he was undergoing treatment as an in-patient during various periods for 25 days.

¶28

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents advanced arguments to justify the quantum of compensation

¶29

MACA No. 1845 of 2011

¶30

determined under various heads of claim and according to

¶31

the learned counsel for the insurance company, there is no scope for any interference in this appeal as the quantum of compensation determined by the tribunal is just and fair. The short points that arises for consideration in this appeal is, the quantum of compensation determined under the heads pain and suffering just and fair and whether the tribunal is justified in taking Rs. 2,500/- as monthly income of the petitioner.

¶32

According to the appellant, he was aged 45 years at the time of accident and he was working as a mason and getting a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month. But the tribunal has taken Rs. 2,500/- only as his monthly income. Having regard to the fact that the appellant was a skilled labour, this court is of the view that the quantum of monthly income taken by the tribunal is low and the same would stand enhanced to Rs. 3,000/- per month.

¶33

MACA No. 1845 of 2011

¶34

-4-

¶35

The tribunal has granted Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of earnings. It shows that the loss of earnings was assessed for 2 months only. But the evidence on record would show that he was undergoing treatment for 25 days during different periods of time. Having regard to the long duration of treatment as an in-patient, this court finds that the quantum of amount determined for pain and suffering is also inadequate and the same would stand enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. For the very same reason, he is entitled to get compensation for loss of earning for three months. Hence the appellant is given Rs.9,000/- (3,000 x 3) towards compensation for loss of earnings.

¶36

This Court has examined the adequacy and correctness of the quantum of compensation determined under various heads of claim and find that there is no scope for interference as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent insurance company.

¶37

MACA No. 1845 of 2011

¶38

-5-

¶39

Thus the total additional compensation payable to the appellant is Rs.11,500/- (Rs.4,000/- + Rs.7,500/-). The total compensation payable to the petitioner is Rs.62,261/(Rupees Sixty Two Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty One only) (Rs.50,761/- + Rs. 11,500/-). Though, the said amount would carry interest as stipulated by the tribunal, the appellant is not entitled to get interest for the period of 1717 days for the delay caused in filing this appeal. The appellant is allowed to withdraw the additional compensation. All other findings of the tribunal will stand undisturbed and operative.

¶40

Sd/K. HARILAL, JUDGE

¶41

EB/26.03.2018

S.Babu v. Moorthy and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Babu v. Moorthy and Another

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

Anilkumar Vs Renu

Sudharma Vs Raju

Rajan Vs Ranjini A.K.

M.B.Vinayakan Vs the M.D., Ksrtc

Krishna Kumari Vs V.P. Surendran

Balasubramanian Vs v.Jagatheesan