Partly allowed

The New Inda Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Muhammed Iqbal

Kerala HC6 Jun 2018MACA/379/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the appeal in part, reducing compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The court held that income should not be based on pre-accident foreign employment figures. Monthly income was re-set at Rs.15,000/- claimed in original petition, resulting in reduction of the award.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced to Rs.7,48,134/- with 8% interest. Insurance company directed to deposit amount within three months.

The New Inda Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Muhammed Iqbal — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶4

OPMV 484/2012 of MACT, WAYANAD, KALPETTA

¶5

APPELLANT(S)/3RD RESPONDENT

¶6

THE NEW INDA ASSURANCE CO. LTD REGIONAL OFFICE, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DUTY AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

¶7

BY ADV.SRI.VPK.PANICKER

¶8

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶9

MUHAMMED IQBAL S/O. ABDULLA, MAROTTIMMAL HOUSE, MAKKIYADU P.O., MANANTHAVADY TLAUK, WAYANAD - 670 731.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

¶11

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

¶12

SCL.

¶13

K.HARILAL, J.

¶14

-------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.379 of 2015

¶15

Dated this the 6^th day of June, 2018

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The appellant Insurance Company is the third respondent/Insurer in O.P.(M.V.) No.484 of 2012 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Wayanad, Kalpetta. This appeal has been filed challenging the quantum of compensation determined under the head compensation for permanent disability and loss of earning.

¶18

The respondent herein filed the aforesaid O.P.(M.V.) 484 of 2012 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by him in a road traffic accident. According to him, the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the first respondent in the original petition and respondents 1 and 2 in the original petition are liable to pay compensation to him and the appellant herein is liable to indemnify the first and second respondents in the original

¶19

-2-

¶20

M.A.C.A. No.379 of 2015

¶21

petition by paying compensation to him. Though, the appellant herein opposed the said application, disputing the quantum of compensation and challenging the cause of accident, the Tribunal passed the award granting Rs.10,30,734/- as compensation to the respondent herein.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶23

The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal went wrong by determining the monthly income of the respondent herein by taking an amount of Rs.22,500/when the respondent has claimed Rs.15,000/- only in the original petition. So also, it was the salary, which he was getting from his lost employment in Gulf country. It is also contended that the amount granted under the head compensation for permanent disability and loss of earning is excessive and liable to be interfered by this Court by reducing the same in this appeal.

¶24

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent

¶25

M.A.C.A. No.379 of 2015

¶26

-3-

¶27

advanced arguments to justify the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal.

¶28

The point to be considered is, whether the Tribunal is justified in determining the monthly income of the respondent herein and determining the quantum of compensation thereunder. Going by the award, it is seen that the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income on the basis of Ext.A11 salary certificate produced by the respondent herein in evidence. It is true that as per the said certificate, he was getting an amount of Rs.22,500/- per month. Going by the original petition, it is seen that the respondent has claimed Rs.15,000/- only as monthly income. When the respondent herein himself has claimed only Rs.15,000/- only as his monthly income, the Tribunal has taken Rs.22,500/- as his monthly income. That apart, Ext.A11 is a salary certificate allegedly issued by his former employer in Gulf country and it shows that while he was working in Gulf country, his monthly salary was 2,500 Durhams. But he lost the said job and Ext.P10 passport shows that his visa expired on 26.4.2012.

¶29

M.A.C.A. No.379 of 2015

¶30

-4-

¶31

At the time of accident on 9.6.2012, he was settled in the native place. The Tribunal has committed a grave error by granting compensation for loss of earnings and permanent disability on the basis of the salary, which he allegedly got, at the time when he worked in UAE. Compensation cannot be granted on the basis of the salary of a lost job as it is not the salary at the time of accident. The Tribunal is not justified in fixing his monthly income at Rs.22,500/- on the basis of Ext.A11. In the above view, the monthly income of the respondent herein would stand re-fixed at Rs.15,000/- only as claimed by him in the original petition. In the above view, the compensation under the head loss of earnings and permanent disability are liable to be reworked. The respondent herein is entitled to get Rs.5,20,200/- only under the head compensation for permanent disability. (15,000 x 12 x 17 x 17/100). Similarly, the respondent herein is entitled to get Rs.45,000/- (15,000 x 3) only for loss of earnings. Total reduction under the heads compensation for permanent disability and loss of earning is Rs.2,82,600/- (2,60,100 +

¶32

M.A.C.A. No.379 of 2015

¶33

-5-

¶34

22,500). Thus, the total compensation payable to the respondent herein is Rs.7,48,134/- (10,30,734 - 2,82,600) only. The aforesaid amount would carry interest at 8% per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation.

¶35

All other finding of the Tribunal would stand undisturbed and operative. The appellant/Insurance Company shall deposit the entire compensation with interest within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. The respondent/petitioner is allowed to withdraw entire amount, after paying court fee, if any.

¶36

In the above view, this appeal will stand allowed in part.

¶37

Sd/K.HARILAL

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Scl/06.06.2018

The New Inda Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Muhammed Iqbal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New Inda Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Muhammed Iqbal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.R.Govindan Vs Sujatha

Deepak Vs Mohammed Haneefa

Noushand Vs Moosa Haji

Sainudheen Vs Moidutty

K.Krishnadas Vs K.U.Rajesh

Roy Vs Jancy