Allowed

Sajeevan v. the Director General of Police

Kerala HC20 Jun 2018MACA/3143/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. Enhancing the compensation from Rs.38,400/- to Rs.1,80,000/- considering the claimant's status as a police officer and specific damages not originally awarded, with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.1,80,000/- with 9% interest and proportionate cost; insurer directed to pay within 30 days (12% interest on default).

Sajeevan Vs the Director General of Police — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

MACA.No. 3143 of 2017

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 174/2013 of MACT VADAKARA DATED 27-09-2016

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶8

SAJEEVAN S/O. GOPALAKURUP, AGED 43 YEARS, THATTARATH HOUSE, EDAVARAT P.O., PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 525.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN SRI.T.R.TARIN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

2. PRADEEPAN, S/O. GOPALAN NAIR, VALIYAKANDIYIL HOUSE, PONMERIPARAMBIL P.O., VILLIAPPALLY, VATAKARA - 673 542.

¶13

3. THE KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER P.M. SADHEESH

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

BNG

¶17

P.D.RAJAN, J

¶18

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A No.3143 of 2017

¶19

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20^th day of June, 2018

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is preferred against the award in O.P(MV) No.174/2013 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara by the injured. The appellant sustained injuries in a motor accident on 12.04.2011 at 1.10 pm. In the lower court, there was no dispute with regard to the accident. The driver of the vehicle filed a written statement and stated that the owner (the first respondent) of the vehicle was holding valid driving licence. The driver denied the negligence from his part. The insurer admitted the insurance of the vehicle. The claimant's documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. Respondents documents were marked as Exts.B1 and B2. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.38,400/- as compensation. Being aggrieved by that, the injured preferred this appeal.

¶22

In Yadava Kumar v. D.M. National

¶23

Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010 (8) SCALE 567) Apex Court reiterated the principle in relation to the assessment of

¶24

M.A.C.A No.3143 of 2017

¶25

-2-

¶26

damages for personal injuries cases as follows:

¶27

“ 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.

¶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

The assessment of compensation in

¶30

permanent disability case 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.

¶31

M.A.C.A No.3143 of 2017

¶32

-3-

¶33

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.

¶34

A perusal of Ext.A2 shows that he sustained fracture to distal end of radius left and nasal bone. The CT scan shows that no inter cranial injury. He was admitted on 12.04.2011 and discharged on 18.04.2011. 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

¶35

M.A.C.A No.3143 of 2017

¶36

-4-

¶37

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.

¶38

The following amount was awarded as compensation by the Tribunal.

¶39

Loss of earnings Nil 2. Transport to hospital Rs.2,000/3. Hospital expenses for 19 days as per A3 & A4 series Rs.11,400/4. Pain & suffering Rs.15,000/5. Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.38,400/-

¶40

The claimant was a Police officer and there

¶41

was no loss of income. But no amount was awarded for extra nourishment and bystander expense. Rs.5,000/- is awarded for extra nourishment and Rs.3,000/- for bystander expense. Additional Rs.5,000/- is awarded for pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- for loss of amenities. No further increase is necessary towards other heads. The

¶42

M.A.C.A No.3143 of 2017

¶43

-5-

¶44

total amount is Rs.18,000/- as enhanced compensation. In addition to the award amount, the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand only) with 9% interest and proportionate cost. 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.

¶45

This appeal is disposed of, accordingly.

¶46

Sd/- P.D.RAJAN

¶47

bng

Sajeevan v. the Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajeevan v. the Director General of Police

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

Johny K.O Vs Biji Anilkumar

Future General India Insurance Company Limited Vs Jayasree.I.a

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Santhosh

Ajesh Kumar.K Vs Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Preetha Tillu

Umaiban @ Umaibanu Vs K.P.Prabhakaran