Partly allowed

Lekha v. Mohanan Nair

Kerala HC20 Nov 2021MACA/1877/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against MACA 1877/2013, the Kerala High Court partly allowed the appeal. The Court found the Tribunal's award adequate except for loss of amenities, allowing an additional Rs.10,000 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.10,000 with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing till realisation. The third respondent, the insurance company, was directed to deposit the enhanced compensati

Lekha Vs Mohanan Nair — Medical Negligence | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 29TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

MACA NO. 1877 OF 2013

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OPMV 1067/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOLLAM

¶7

APPELLANT:

¶8

LEKHA,AGED 48 YEARS D/O.SARASWATHI AMMA, OTTETHUVEEDU, PADA SOUTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY.

¶9

BY ADV SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 MOHANAN NAIR THUNDUVILAVEEDU, PUNNAMOODU, VARKALA 695 141.

¶12

2 SAJEEV

¶13

PALLIKKOODAM THOPPIL, NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM 691 582.

¶14

3 THE BRANCH MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM, GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KOLLAM 691 001.

¶15

BY ADVS.

¶16

SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.

¶17

T HIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MACA 1877/2013

JUDGMENT

From the endorsement made by the Registry, it is seen that notice

¶22

to the first respondent has returned unserved stating 'expired'. Since the first respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle involved in the accident and the third respondent insurance company has admitted the liability to pay compensation, service of notice is dispensed with. Therefore, service is complete in this appeal.

¶23

The petitioner in O.P.(MV)No.1067/2009 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam has filed this appeal dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The parties in this appeal are referred to as per the status in the claim petition. According to the petitioner, while she was travelling as pillion rider on a scooter bearing Reg.No.KL-2/G-816 along KollamKannanalloor road, it was hit by a tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KL01/K-9523 driven by the second respondent and she fell down and sustained serious injuries. She was hospitalised for three months and was in ventilator for about two months. She claimed an amount of

¶24

MACA 1877/2013

¶25

¶26

Rs.62,55,000/- as compensation for the personal injuries sustained in the accident.

¶27

Respondents entered appearance before the Tribunal and filed written statements. The insurance company filed written statement admitting that the tipper lorry was covered by a valid policy of insurance at the time of the accident, but, contended that the accident happened not due to the negligence of the second respondent, the driver of the tipper lorry. They also contended that the compensation claimed is excessive. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the tipper lorry by the second respondent.

¶28

The Tribunal awarded the following compensation under

¶29

various heads:-

¶30

Heads	Amount claimed	Amount awarded
	(in Rs.)	(in Rs.)
Loss of earnings	25,000/-	21,000/-
Transport to Hospital	5,000/-	10,000/-

¶31

MACA 1877/2013

¶32

¶33

Extra-nourishment	10,000/-	5,000/-
Damages to clothing and articles	5,000/-
Others- By-standers expenses and medical expenses etc.	6,50,000/-	7,79,650/-
Compensation for pain and suffering	10,00,000/-	50,000/-
Permanent Disability	35,00,000/-	1,76,400/-
Loss of amenities	10,60,000/-
Total	62,55,000/-	10,42,500/-

¶34

On going through the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, I find that the same is adequate except for the compensation for loss of amenities in life. Though the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.10,60,000/- under the said head, no amount is seen awarded by the Tribunal. The petitioner had sustained serious injuries. Going through the nature of the injuries sustained by her, the Tribunal ought to have awarded a reasonable amount of compensation under this head. I am of

¶35

MACA 1877/2013

¶36

¶37

the view that an amount of Rs.10,000/- will be just compensation to be awarded under the head loss of amenities in life. The same is granted.

¶38

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is granted an enhanced compensation of Rs.10,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation. The third respondent insurance company shall deposit the additional compensation granted in this appeal along with interest thereon and proportionate cost which is fixed as Rs.2,000/-, before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶41

spc/

Lekha v. Mohanan Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lekha v. Mohanan Nair

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

Sarun G. Vs State of Kerala

K.X.Martin & Others Vs K.S.E.B. & Another

Abdulrasak Vs the District Collector

Prasanna Babu @ Babu Vs Aliarkutty

Sajeena S. Vs Irshad a.

Amina Beevi Vs Rejendran