Allowed

Vaheeda K.V v. National Insurance Co.Ltd

Kerala HC26 Nov 2018MACA/1850/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 1.25 lakhs. The Court recalculated compensation based on the appellant's true income of Rs. 6,500/month (adjusted to Rs. 6,000 as per precedents), adding amounts for permanent disability, loss of income, pain, and suffering, directing the insurer to pay additional Rs. 64,760 with interest.

What did the court decide?

The insurer is directed to pay additional compensation of Rs. 64,760 plus 9% interest and proportionate cost, to be satisfied within 30 days.

Vaheeda K.V Vs National Insurance Co.Ltd — Motor Accident Claims | 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 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

MACA.No. 1850 of 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 553/2011 of PRINCIPAL M.A.C.T.,KOZHIKODE DATED 27-09-2013

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

VAHEEDA K.V AGED 48 YEARS W/O.AKBAR, DREAM VALLEY, MULIYANPARAMBU, P.O.FAROOK COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN SMT.MARIAN G.M.THARAKAN SRI.M.V.DAS SRI.S.JAYAKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶11

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE NOOR COMPLEX, MAVOOR ROAD,KOZHIKODE-673661.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR

¶13

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

MACA.No. 1850 of 2015

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This appeal is preferred against the award in OP(MV) No.553/2011 of Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode by the injured. The appellant sustained injuries in a motor accident on 14.08.2010 at 12.00 noon while she was standing at Mankavu petrol pump, at that time, a car driven in a rash and negligent manner knocked down her, as a result, she sustained serious injuries. The driver and owner were set ex-parte in the lower court. The insurer admitted the insurance of the vehicle. The claimant did not adduce any oral evidence, but her documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. The disability certificate was marked as Ext.C1. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-. Hence, this appeal.

¶18

In Yadava Kumar v. D.M. National 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:

¶19

“ 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

¶20

MACA.No. 1850 of 2015

¶21

¶22

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.

¶23

10. 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.”

¶24

In injury cases the damages are to be assessed separately as pecuniary and special damages. The object is to compensate injury 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 non-pecuniary 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.

¶25

The assessment of compensation in permanent disability case would differ from person to person according to

¶26

MACA.No. 1850 of 2015

¶27

¶28

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.

¶29

The appellant is a tailor by profession and was getting Rs.6,500/- per month. The learned Tribunal took Rs.3,000/- as his income. In view of Dixit Kumar and Ors. v.

¶30

OM Prakash Goel (2017 ACJ 2057), her income is taken as Rs.6,000/- and she is entitled to get following additional amount as compensation. The permanent disability compensation is Rs.6,000x12x13x7/100=Rs.65,520/-. The

¶31

MACA.No. 1850 of 2015

¶32

¶33

learned Tribunal awarded Rs.32,760/- and the balance amount is Rs.32,760/-. Loss of income for three months is Rs.18,000/-. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.6,000/- and the balance amount is Rs.12,000/-. For pain and suffering, additional Rs.10,000/-, for loss of amenities Rs.10,000/-. The appellant is entitled to get additional compensation of Rs.64,760/- (Rupees Sixty Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty only) with 9% interest and proportionate cost in addition to the award amount. The insurer is directed to satisfy the award within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which it will carry 12% interest from the date of default.

¶34

This appeal is disposed of, as above.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

P.D.RAJAN JUDGE

¶37

bng/03.12.18

Vaheeda K.V v. National Insurance Co.Ltd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaheeda K.V v. National 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

Chandran Pillai Vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Chandran Pillai

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs K. Saraswathi Amma

Elizabath John Vs G.Sampurnam

Nationala Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sajan

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Muhammed C.K