Partly allowed

Raju v. Jayakumar P.

Kerala HC16 Oct 2018MACA/2993/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against an inadequate motor accident compensation award, the Court enhanced the sum from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 36,650. The Court also rejected a claim for disability compensation due to lack of documentary evidence. Added interest of 7.5% p.a. was ordered.

What did the court decide?

The compensation award was enhanced to Rs. 36,650/- payable by the Insurance company with interest at 7.5% per annum within six weeks.

Raju Vs Jayakumar P. — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 24TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

MACA.No. 2993 of 2008

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 2807/2005 of M.A.C.T.,ERNAKULAM DATED 12-12-2007

¶7

APPELLANTS:

¶8

1 RAJU

¶9

CHERAVALLKANDAM, AMBALAPPUZHA P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

¶10

2 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL S.RAJ

¶12

SMT.ANILA PETER SMT.K.N.RAJANI SMT.MANJUSHA MOHANDAS

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 JAYAKUMAR P., S/O PAREMESWARA KURUP, CHERAVALLIKANDAM, AMBALAPPUZHA P.O., ALAPPUZHA

¶15

2 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA

¶16

R2 SMT. SARA SELVI

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The appellant seeks for enhancement of compensation

¶20

awarded by the Tribunal in respect of the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident occurred 23.02.2005.

¶21

MACA.No. 2993 of 2008

¶22

¶23

The appellant was proceeding along the road on

¶24

the ill-fated day, when he was knocked down by a motor cycle ridden by the 1^st respondent and insured by the second respondent. This led to the claim petition, where the respondents did not choose to contest the matter and were set exparte. In the said circumstances, the appellant submitted proof affidavit and marked documents as Exts. A1 to A7. Based on the available materials on record and taking note of the injuries, the Tribunal fixed a lump sum compensation of Rs.25000/-, ordering same to be satisfied as ordered therein, which is stated as inadequate and hence sought to be enhanced in this appeal.

¶25

The appeal is filed with a delay of 50 days, wherein notice was ordered on 09.01.2009. No process charges were remitted by the appellant till. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that process charges were remitted on 15.10.2018 and pursuant to the same Smt. Sara Selvi has appeared on behalf of the second respondent/Insurer.

¶26

The fact that the accident was in the year 2005

¶27

MACA.No. 2993 of 2008

¶28

¶29

is not disputed and as such, the claim put up, that the appellant, as a daily wage worker, was earning a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month can be safely accepted for working out the compensation. Injuries sustained by the appellant as noted in paragraph 7 of the Award are as given below :

¶30

“7. Pursuant to the accident petitioner was admitted in General Hospital, Ernakulam. In the accident, the petitioner sustained lacerated wound middle 3^rd of (L) leg, incised lacerated would 4 x 0.5 cm, left eyebrow, and fracture upper 3^rd of left humerous could be seen from Ext. A2 copy of wound certificate issued from the hospital. He was treated as in-

¶31

The Tribunal has observed that the appellant

¶32

was under the treatment for a period of four months. Hence a sum of Rs.12,000/- [Rs.3000 x 4] is payable under the head loss of earning. There was

¶33

hospitalization for a period of 11 days. In the said circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate award a sum of Rs.1,650/- [150*11] towards the bystanders'

¶34

MACA.No. 2993 of 2008

¶35

¶36

expenses. Obviously, the injuries include fracture to

¶37

the upper 3^rd left arm, and as such, the appellant is entitled to get compensation for pain and suffering, which is hereby fixed as Rs.20,000/- . The appellant is also entitled to get transportation expenses, which is fixed as Rs.2000/- . Similarly, a sum of Rs. 1000/- will be justified towards damage to the dress and also for extra nourishment. Thus the total compensation payable will come to Rs.36,650/-. After deducting a sum of

¶38

Rs.25000/- awarded by the Tribunal as lump sum compensation, the baance compensation payable will come

¶39

to Rs.11,650/- [Rupees Eleven thousand Six hundred and fifty] which requires to be satisfied to the petitioner.

¶40

No specific plea of disability has been pointed out by the appellant and no disability certificate was ever produced before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for he appellant makes a submission to the effect that the appellant is suffering from partial paralysis of the left hand. This Court finds it difficult to accept the said proposition, as no document was ever produced before the Tribunal, nor even before this Court, despite pendecy

¶41

¶42

MACA.No. 2993 of 2008

¶43

of the matter for more than 10 years. In the said

¶44

circumstances, the present claim with reference to the alleged disability is not liable to be accepted.

¶45

The additional compensation as above shall be deposited by the 2^nd respondent Insurance company before the Tribunal with interest @ 7.5 % p.a from today till satisfaction within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

kmd

Raju v. Jayakumar P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju v. Jayakumar P.

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

Rosamma & Others Vs Eliyamma & Others

Ananthakrishnan Vs Lishil A.M.

Muhammed Manzoor Vs S.Rajan and Another

P.M.Sunny Vs Sadanandan

Prabhakaran Vs Margret

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Naisam.P.Ashraf