Partly allowed

Alley v. Sugunan @ Devarajan and 2 Others

Kerala HC10 Oct 2018MACA/2967/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for a pedestrian injured in a motor accident. The court held the original quantum inadequate and granted additional sums for loss of earning, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 28,500 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition to be deposited by the insurer.

Alley Vs Sugunan @ Devarajan and 2 Others — Insurance | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 18TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

MACA.No. 2967 of 2008

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1828/2005 of M.A.C.T., KOTTAYAM DATED 13.06.2008

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

ALLEY, THURUTHICKATTUCHIRA HOUSE, KUDAMALOOR.P.O, AYMANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 SUGUNAN @ DEVARAJAN , KUTTAPARAMBIL, PANDAVAM BHAGOM,, AYMANAM.P.O, AYMANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.

¶12

2 DAROJI RAO, SMOG FJELD HOUSE SKYLINE, TATA GODOWN, COCHIN.

¶13

3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. KOTTAYAM.

¶14

R3 BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

MACA.No. 2967 of 2008

¶17

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the

¶20

Tribunal in respect of the injuries sustained by the appellant is the subject mater of challenge in this appeal.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company.

¶22

The appellant was a pedestrian. While

¶23

proceeding along the road on 10.05.2004, she was knocked down by a car driven by the first respondent, owned by the second respondent and insured by the third respondent, causing serious injuries including fracture to her right leg. This led to the claim petition before the Tribunal. The first and second respondents chose to remain ex – parte. The claim was contested by the insurer, mainly with reference to negligence and quantum. The evidence adduced before the Tribunal consists of Exts.A1 to A12 produced from the part of

¶24

¶25

MACA.No. 2967 of 2008

¶26

the claimant. Nobody was examined from either side. Ext.A7 certificate issued by the Medical Board shows that the claimant has 7% permanent partial disability.

¶27

Based on the evidence on record, a finding was

¶28

rendered to the effect that the accident was solely because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the car and that he had not a valid driving licence at

¶29

the time of the accident. The Tribunal fixed the liability upon the third respondent-insurer, with liberty to recover the same from the first and second respondents.

¶30

5. The appellant is stated as a general worker. Though there is a case that the appellant/claimant was having a monthly income of Rs.4500/-, no evidence was adduced before the Tribunal as to the avocation or income, which made the Tribunal to reckon the monthly income notionally as Rs.2500/-. Multiplier of '13' (she was aged 49 at the time of the accident)was adopted to work out/assess the compensation.

¶31

The amounts awarded by the Tribunal are the

¶32

MACA.No. 2967 of 2008

¶33

¶34

following:

¶35

Head	Amount awarded (in Rs.)
Medical expenses	494
Loss of earning for three months	7500
Transportation to hospital	1000
Damage to clothing	500
Extra nourishment	500
Compensation for pain and suffering	12000
Compensation towards permanent partial disability of 7%	27300/- (2500 x 12 x 13 x 7/100)
Loss of amenities	7000
Compensation for future treatment	5000
TOTAL	61,294/-

¶36

The appellant is mainly aggrieved of the inadequacy of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶37

After hearing both the sides and considering

¶38

the ordeal undergone by the appellant, this Court is of the view that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, which requires to be enhanced to an appropriate extent.

¶39

Considering the nature and extent of injuries

¶40

¶41

MACA.No. 2967 of 2008

¶42

sustained by the appellant, this Court is of the view that more time would have been required to have the wounds healed and to have the appellant resume duty. Since the Tribunal has reckoned only 'three months' for calculating the loss of earning , it requires to be enhanced by 'three months' more; thus resulting in balance of Rs.7500/-(2500 x 3) under this head. It is ordered accordingly. Serious injuries have been suffered by the appellant and as such, it would only be appropriate if the compensation towards pain and suffering is enhanced to Rs.20000/-, thus resulting in a balance of Rs.8000/- . Similarly, compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life also requires a hike to an appropriate extent. This Court awards a further sum of Rs. 13000/- under the said head. Thus, the total additional compensation payable comes to Rs.28,500/ -, which shall be satisfied with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of satisfaction. The amount due shall be deposited by the insurer before the Tribunal at the

¶43

¶44

MACA.No. 2967 of 2008

¶45

earliest, at any rate within six weeks from the date of

¶46

receipt of a copy of the judgment .

¶47

As per the decision reported in 2006(4)SCC 250 [National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Kusum Rai] that, it is

¶48

for the owner of the vehicle to ensure that the vehicle

¶49

is driven by a person who is having valid driving licence. It is relevant to note that the said decision

¶50

was rendered by the Apex Court consisting of a learned Judge who was also a member of the Bench who passed the verdict in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh [ 2004(1`)KLT 781 (SC )] .

¶51

The respondent/Insurer is at liberty to have it recovered from the other respondents concerned, after satisfaction to the appellant/claimant, based on the right of recovery already granted by the Tribunal, which stands unchallenged by the said respondents.

¶52

Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶53

Alley v. Sugunan @ Devarajan and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alley v. Sugunan @ Devarajan and 2 Others

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

Narayanan N. Vs M.Ashok Kumar

Bhavees Bhargavan Vs K.Rasheed

Sukumaran Vs the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Thrissur

Puthenpeedika Syed Vs Narayanathodi Balanandan @ Balan

Anil T.Jose Vs Thiru.a. and Others

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Chandrika and Others