Allowed

Ananthakrishnan v. Lishil A.M.

Kerala HC10 Oct 2018MACA/85/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, the court enhanced the compensation for loss of earning, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities by Rs. 16,000. The court also directed the insurer to satisfy the claim despite the rider's lack of a valid driving licence, reserving the insurer's right to recover from the owner.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation by Rs. 16,000 (Rs. 8,000 payable to appellant). Direction to insurer to pay amount with 7.5% interest within six weeks.

Ananthakrishnan Vs Lishil A.M. — 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. 85 of 2009

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 778/2003 of MACT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 25-06-2008

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

ANANTHAKRISHNAN, S/O. RAMU, MALIEKKA PARAMBIL HOUSE, MADAVAKKARA DESOM,NENMANIKKARA, VILLAGE, CHITTISSERRY.P.O,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 LISHIL A.M., S/O. NARAYANAN A.K., ARANAKKAL HOUSE, CHENGALOOR.P.O.

¶12

2 MANESH, S/O..MADHAVAN,PALLIVALAPPIL HOUSE MANALI DESOM, AMBALLUR.P.O.

¶13

3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, PARK HOUSE ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR.

¶14

4 MOHAMMED HANEEFA, AGENT, L.I.C.OF INDIA KOTTARAKKARA.P.O, KOLLAM.

¶15

5 MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD IRINJALAKUDA.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SMT.K.SHERIN MOHAN

¶17

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

MACA No. 85 of 2009

JUDGMENT

The appellant was riding the motor cycle on

¶22

04.08.2002, when the motor cycle collided with another motor cycle ridden by the second respondent, causing injuries, which led to the claim petition filed before the Tribunal.

¶23

The evidence adduced before the Tribunal

¶24

consists of Exts. A1 to A9 and the deposition given by the appellant as P.W1; besides copy of the policy produced as Ext.B1 from the part of the respondents. Based on the materials on record, the Tribunal fixed negligence equally on the riders of both the vehicles including the appellant herein..

¶25

The details of injuries, as discussed in

¶26

paragraph '6' of the Award are as given below:

¶27

“Ext.A3 wound certificate issued from the Trichur Heart Hospital shows that the petitioner was admitted there with a cut lacerated wound over the right lateral malleolus, multiple cut wound over the right eyebrow, small cuts over the fingers of right hand and investigation revealed fracture of

¶28

¶29

MACA No. 85 of 2009

¶30

medial malleolus and comminuted fracture of the fibula.” (sic)

¶31

Reckoning the notional monthly income as

¶32

Rs.3000/-, the Tribunal awarded amounts under different heads, as extracted below:

¶33

Head	Amount awarded (in Rs.)
Medical expenses	32700
Transportation expenses	500
Hospital expenses	1200
Loss of earning (3000 x 3)	9000
Pain and suffering	12000
Loss of amenities	6000
TOTAL	61400

¶34

Based on the fixation of negligence on equal proportion, only 50% of the total compensation of Rs.61400/- was directed to be satisfied with interest, which in turn is sought to be enhanced in this appeal.

¶35

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that negligence aspect is not intended to be disputed in this appeal but for projecting the claim for enhanced compensation.

¶36

Considering the nature and extent of injuries

¶37

¶38

MACA No. 85 of 2009

¶39

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.9000/ - under this head. It is ordered accordingly. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.12000/- towards pain and suffering, which is enhanced to Rs.15000/-, thus resulting in a balance of Rs.3000/- . Though the appellant had produced Ext.A1 disability certificate, the same was not accepted, as the Doctor was not examined. In fact, the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.6000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to have it enhanced by Rs.4000/ - more. Thus, the total additional compensation payable comes to Rs.16,000/-. 50% of which, i.e . Rs.8000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) has to be satisfied (based on the fixation of negligence on equal proportion), with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the claim

¶40

¶41

MACA No. 85 of 2009

¶42

petition, till satisfaction.

¶43

The Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company

¶44

merely on the fact that the rider was not having valid driving licence on the date of the accident. The proper

¶45

course to be followed was to have the said liability satisfied by the insurer, with liberty to have it recovered from the owner/insured. As such, the award

¶46

is modified to the said extent. The second respondent/insurer is directed to satisfy the amount due with interest before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶47

Appeal stands disposed of.

¶48

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

¶49

Ananthakrishnan v. Lishil A.M.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananthakrishnan v. Lishil A.M.

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

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