Allowed

Sreenivasan v. Midhun

Kerala HC16 Oct 2018MACA/3083/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Motor Accidents Claims Appeal challenged the compensation award given to an injured appellant. The Court enhanced the compensation amount by recalculating damages based on assumed monthly income, disability percentage, and various heads like pain, suffering, and loss of amenities.

What did the court decide?

Appellant entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.35,280/- with 9% interest in addition to the Tribunal's award.

Sreenivasan Vs Midhun — 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

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

¶5

MACA.NO. 3083 OF 2014

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.791/2009 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 15-01-2014

¶7

APPELLANT/APPLICANT :

¶8

SREENIVASAN, S/O.VASU, PANAGATTUKKARA HOUSE, ARIANKALA DESOM, EAST CHALAKKUDY VILLAGE

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :

¶11

1 MIDHUN, S/O.ISSAC, PADIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHAIPPANKUZHY DESOM, KUTTICHIRA VILLAGE-680724.

¶12

2 ISSAC, S/O. JOHN, PADIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHAIPPANKUZHY DESOM, KUTTICHIRA VILLAGE-680724.

¶13

3 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., SREEKUMAR BUILDINGS, P.B. NO.1, SOUTH JUNCTION, CHALAKKUDY-680002.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP

¶15

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

¶16

MACA.NO. 3083 OF 2014

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is preferred against the award in O.P.(M.V.) No.791 of 2009 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda by the injured. Appellant sustained injuries in a motor accident and the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,62,465/- (Rupees Two Lakh Sixty Two Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Five only) with 7.5% interest and proportionate cost. Being aggrieved by that, the claimant preferred this appeal. The accident was not disputed by the respondents in the lower court. Claimant's case in the lower court was that, on 25.09.2008 at 9.00 p.m., while he was travelling as a pillion rider on a motor cycle KL-8/K-570 through Chalakudy- Athirappilly public road and when they reached at Koodapuzha, a car KL-3/G-2262 driven in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle, as a result they sustained serious injuries.

¶20

The driver and owner of the car were ex parte in the lower court. The insurer admitted the insurance of the vehicle. Claimant did not adduce any oral evidence, but his documents

¶21

MACA.NO. 3083 OF 2014 3

¶22

were marked as Exts.A1 to A11.

¶23

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 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:

¶24

“ 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

¶25

MACA.NO. 3083 OF 2014

¶26

¶27

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.

¶28

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.”

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that meagre amount was awarded by the tribunal as compensation. He was conducting a Furniture Shop and was getting Rs.6,000/- per month, but the learned Tribunal took only Rs.3,500/- as his monthly income. He sustained 8% disability and he is entitled to get just amount as compensation.

¶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,

¶31

MACA.NO. 3083 OF 2014

¶32

¶33

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

¶34

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.

¶35

It is true that the appellant was conducting a furniture shop, but no evidence has been adduced in the lower court to prove the income, hence it is better to take Rs.4,500/- as his monthly income for awarding additional amounts as enhanced compensation. Permanent disability Rs.77,760/- (4500x12x 18x8%). The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.60,480/- on that head and the balance is Rs.17,280/-. Loss of income for four months Rs.18,000/- (4500x4). Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.14,000/- and the balance is Rs.4,000/-. Extra nourishment Rs.2,000/-, Bystander expenses Rs.2,000/-, Pain and sufferings

¶36

MACA.NO. 3083 OF 2014 6

¶37

Rs.5,000/- and Loss of amenities Rs.5,000/-. The total enhanced compensation is Rs.35,280/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty only). Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to get an enhanced compensation of Rs.35,280/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty only) with 9% interest and proportionate cost in addition to the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. The insurer is directed to satisfy the award within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which it will carry 12% interest from the date of default.

¶38

M.A.C.A. is disposed of as above.

¶39

Sd/- P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE

¶40

/True Copy/

¶41

P.A. To Judge

¶42

Sreenivasan v. Midhun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreenivasan v. Midhun

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

Aby Vs Mani

Mohammed Haneefa Vs Abdul Salam

Shanavas Vs K.P.Abdul Saleem

A.Vijayakumar Vs Natarajan

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Lalitha K.G.

Sundaran Vs Pratheesh