Partly allowed

Sujith.M v. Jose Sebastian

Kerala HC4 Dec 2021MACA/1672/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Motor Accident Claims Appeal, the High Court held that the compensation quantum awarded by the Tribunal was not just and reasonable. The court enhanced the claim by Rs.1,25,300/- regarding loss of earnings, bystander expenses, pain and suffering, and other heads, and ordered the insurer to pay the enhanced amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs.1,25,300/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum and costs of Rs.4,000/-.

Sujith.M Vs Jose Sebastian — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021/13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

M.A.C.A.NO. 1672 OF 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(MV) NO.1523 OF 2012 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM

¶7

APPELLANT:

¶8

SUJITH.M SULFAR MANZIL (KOLLELIL), KUMARANALLOOR, PERUMBAIKADU PO, KOTTAYAM – 686016.

¶9

BY ADVS. PHILIP T.VARGHESE ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM K.R.MONISHA THOMAS T.VARGHESE

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 JOSE SEBASTIAN PULICKAL HOUSE, MARANGATTUPALLY PO, PALAI – 686635.

¶12

2 LEELAMMA JOSE PULICKAL HOUSE, MARANGATTUPALLY PO, PALAI – 686635.

¶13

3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. KOTTYAM – 686001.

¶14

BY ADVS. A.R.GEORGE N.S.NAJEEB

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 27.11.2021, THE COURT ON 04.12.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

M.A.C.A.No.1672 of 2015

¶18

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶19

----------------------------------------------------------M.A.C.A.No.1672 of 2015

¶20

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 4^th day of December, 2021

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant was the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.1523 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. The respondents in the appeal were respondents 1 to 3 before the Tribunal.

¶23

The appellant had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation on account of the injuries that he sustained in an accident on 17.04.2012.

¶24

The appellant was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KL 5/AB/8833 along Kumaranalloor, Ettumanoor road. At about 9.00 a.m, when he reached in front of the Muhaydeen mosque near Parolickal a car bearing registration No.KL 35/1378 being driven by the 1^st respondent came in the opposite direction and dashed against his motorcycle. In the accident, he sustained injuries including compressive fracture

¶25

¶26

M.A.C.A.No.1672 of 2015

¶27

to L2 vertebrae. He had undergone treatment in the Indo Americal Hospital as an inpatient from 17.04.2012 to 01.05.2012.

¶28

The appellant is a salesman in a textile shop and

¶29

has been earning a monthly income of Rs.8,000/-.

¶30

Respondents nos.1 and 2 filed written statement

¶31

refuting the averments in the claim petition. The 3^rd respondent also had filed a written statement disputing the age, income and occupation of the appellant in the claim petition. However, the 3^rd respondent admitted that the vehicle had a valid insurance coverage.

¶32

The evidence in the case consists of only documentary evidence, Exts.A1 to A13 and Ext.X1.

¶33

The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by its award dated 13.02.2015, allowed the claim petition in part, by permitting the appellant to recover from the 3^rd respondent an amount of Rs.4,12,500/-, with interest and costs.

¶34

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is in appeal.

¶35

¶36

M.A.C.A.No.1672 of 2015

¶37

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶38

The sole question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

¶39

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the monthly income of the appellant, assessing the bystanders' expenses and quantifying the compensation under the head, 'pain and suffering'. The learned counsel also would contend that compensation for loss of earning for atleast six months, taking into account the treatment required for the injuries, should have been awarded.

¶40

The Tribunal has fixed Rs.5,000/- as the monthly income of the appellant. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager,

¶41

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and as explained the principle in

¶42

¶43

M.A.C.A.No.1672 of 2015

¶44

Gopinathan A. and others v. Afzal Basha and another

¶45

[2020 3 KHC 666] , the Tribunal ought to have fixed the notional monthly income as Rs.8,000/-. In view of the principle in Ramachandrappa's case and Gopinathan A.'s case , and considering the claim of the appellant that he was drawing Rs.8,000/- every month during the period as income, the notional income of the appellant should be fixed at Rs.8,000/-.

¶46

The appellant sustained burst compression fracture to L2 vertebral body and underwent L1 L3 pedicle screws and posterior fixation of L2 fracture. He has been in the hospital from 17.04.2012 to 01.05.2012 and had to be under treatment for about 11 months. Considering that aspect, I am of the view that the bystander expense ordered by the Tribunal has to be refixed as Rs.5,500/-, an enhancement of Rs.2,500/-.

¶47

Rs.30,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal as

¶48

compensation for 'pain and suffering'. In the nature of the injuries and the period during which the appellant had undergone treatment in my view, the compensation for ‘pain

¶49

¶50

M.A.C.A.No.1672 of 2015

¶51

and sufferings’ need to be enhanced as Rs.45,000/- from

¶52

Rs.30,000/-. Therefore the enhancement is Rs.15,000/-.

¶53

In view of what are stated above, the

¶54

compensation quantified by the learned Tribunal requires re-

¶55

fixation as follows:-

¶56

Sl. No	Head of claim Compensation for	Amount awarded by the Tribunal	Enhanced compensation
1	Loss of earnings	10,000 (5000x2)	6,000 (8000- 5000=3000x2)
2	Partial loss of earnings	-
3	Transport to hospital	2,000	-
4	Extra nourishment	2,000	-
5	Damage to clothing and articles	500	-
6	Bystander expenses	3,000	2,500 (5500- 3000=2500)
7	Medicines and treatment	1,87,000	-
8	Pain and suffering	30,000	15,000 (45000- 30000=15000)
9	Loss of amenities and inconvenience in life	25,000	10,000
10	Loss of earning capacity	1,53,000	91,800 (8000-5000=3000 x12x17x 15%)
11	For permanent disability	-	-
12	Loss of bright marriage prospects and career	-	-
	TOTAL	4,12,500	1,25,300

¶57

With respect to other heads of compensation, I find that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable and just

¶58

¶59

M.A.C.A.No.1672 of 2015

¶60

compensation.

¶61

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, by enhancing the compensation by an amount of Rs.1,25,300/with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till the date of deposit, and a costs of Rs.4,000/-. The 3^rd respondent is ordered to make payment of the enhanced compensation with interest and costs through the Tribunal within sixty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The Tribunal shall see that the amount of enhanced compensation is duly disbursed to the appellant in accordance with law.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶64

PV/dkr

Sujith.M v. Jose Sebastian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujith.M v. Jose Sebastian

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

Liji Suresh Kumar Vs Anil Kumar

Antony Vs Shemeer

Abdul Salam Vs Bindu M.K

Sasidharan .C., Vs the Station House Officer

E.Padmanabhan, Vs the State of Kerala

Deepak Dinesh Vs State of Kerala