Allowed

Mohammed Haneefa v. Abdul Salam

Kerala HC15 Oct 2018MACA/2191/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge Bench of the Kerala High Court enhanced compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal from Rs. 1,44,180/- to Rs. 1,54,000/- with interest for an injured pillion rider suffering permanent disability.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,54,000/- with 9% interest and proportionate cost awarded to the appellant; insurer directed to pay within 30 days.

Mohammed Haneefa Vs Abdul Salam — Insurance | 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 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 23RD ASWINA, 1940

¶5

M.A.C.A.No. 2191 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 2548/2006 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRICHUR

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

MOHAMMED HANEEFA S/O.ABOOBACKER,CHERODATH HOUSE,P.O.PURANGU,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 ABDUL SALAM

¶12

S/O.KUNJI BAVA,IYINKKAL HOUSE, P.O.KANHIRAMUKKU,PURANGU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

2 HARISS BABU S/O,MAYAN,PRUMPULLYPATTU PAYYURAYIL HOUSE,(MP HOUSE), PURANGU,MALAPPURAM DIST.

¶14

3 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. AMBIKA ARACADE, M.G.ROAD,THRISSUR.

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

M.A.C.A.No. 2191 of 2018 2

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is preferred against the award in OP(MV) No.2548

¶20

of 2006 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. Appellant sustained injuries in a motor accident and learned Tribunal awarded Rs.1,44,180/- with 9% interest and cost as compensation. Being aggrieved by that , the injured preferred this appeal.

¶21

It would be now be relevant and useful to mention the facts leading to the accident. The claimants case is that, on 29.12.2005 at 6.20 a.m, the appellant travelled as a pillion rider in a motor cycle bearing reg. no. KL-10/5 3460 through Changaramkualm – Kunnamkulam SH road, when he reached the place of occurrence, rider of the motor cycle suddenly applied brake, as a result appellant was thrown away and sustained serious injury. The driver and owner of the vehicle were ex parte. Insurer admitted the insurance of the vehicle. Claimants did not adduce any oral evidence and their documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A13.

¶22

M.A.C.A.No. 2191 of 2018 3

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant

¶24

contended that he is a Government contractor and was getting 20,000/- per month, but the learned Tribunal took only Rs.4,000/for awarding compensation.

¶25

In permanent injury case, the injured is entitled to get higher income than that in death case. 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

¶26

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. 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:

¶27

M.A.C.A.No. 2191 of 2018 4

¶28

“ 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 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.

¶29

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.”

¶30

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

¶31

M.A.C.A.No. 2191 of 2018 5

¶32

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.

¶33

Hence, the appellant is entitled to get just amount as

¶34

compensation and his income is taken as 6,000/-. Following amount is awarded as enhanced compensation.

¶35

Sl. No	Head of claim	Amount awarded by the Tribunal (in Rs.)	Amount awarded by this Court (in Rs.)
1	Loss of earning	16,000/-	8,000/-
2	Transportation expenses	2,000/-	----
3	Medical and Miscellaneous Expenses	15,378,73/-	----
4	Bystander expenses	6,500/-	----
5	Extra nourishment	2,000/-	----
6	Damage to clothing	500/-	----
7	Pain and suffering	20,000/-	30,000/-
8	Loss/reduction in earningcapacity	76,800/-	96,000/-(1,72,800-76,800)
9	Compensation for loss of amenities of life	5000/-	20,000/-
	Total	1,44,178,73/-	1,54,000/-

¶36

M.A.C.A.No. 2191 of 2018 6

¶37

*There is an omission to award interest for the principal award

¶38

amount. Hence, he is entitled to get Rs.1,54,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Four Thousand only) with 9% interest and proportionate cost as enhanced compensation 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

¶39

9% interest from the date of default.

¶40

SD/P.D.RAJAN,

¶41

ACM / 30.10.2018 JUDGE

¶42

Corrected as per order dated 4.2.2019 in I.A.No.1 of 2019.

¶43

SD/-

¶44

P.D.RAJAN,

¶45

JUDGE

Mohammed Haneefa v. Abdul Salam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Haneefa v. Abdul Salam

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

The Director General of Police Vs Biju

The Director General of Police Vs Sudheesh S.

Vishnu Raveendran Vs Sunil

Aby Vs Mani

Shanavas Vs K.P.Abdul Saleem

Janeesh Devasia Vs Jolly M.P.