Partly allowed

Bhaskaran Nair, v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Kerala HC14 Sept 2021MACA/6/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed the appeal in part, enhancing compensation for loss of amenities and pain and sufferings awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, declaring that just compensation is the principle irrespective of the claimed amount.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs. 30,000/- with 9% interest from the date of claim; insurance company to deposit the enhanced amount with costs within two months.

Bhaskaran Nair, Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

M.A.C.A.No.6 of 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN TUESDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD

¶5

BHADRA, 1943

¶6

MACA NO. 6 OF 2019

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 1187/2015 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , MANJERI,

¶8

MALAPPURAM

¶9

APPELLANT/S:

¶10

BHASKARAN NAIR, AGED 66 YEARS S/O.RAMANKUTTY NAIR, RESIDING AT KANNADATHIL 369 AMBALAPPADI, P.O.TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM- 676317. BY ADV K.V.RESHMI

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DO WHITE LINE BUILDING, KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE- 673001, REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGER.

¶13

BY ADV SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,UNITED INDIA INSU

¶14

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

M.A.C.A.No.6 of 2019

¶16

¶17

A.BADHARUDEEN, J.

¶18

================================ M.A.C.A.No.6 of 2019

¶19

================================

¶20

Dated this the 14^th day of September, 2021

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner in O.P(MV) No.1187/2015 on the file of the

¶23

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri has filed this appeal aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation granted by the Tribunal. The 2 nd respondent insurance company is the sole respondent herein

¶24

2 . I would like to refer the parties in this appeal as to their status before the Tribunal for easy reference.

¶25

3 . Brief facts:

¶26

According to the petitioner, on 2.8.2014 at about 12 noon, while the petitioner was walking along the side of the road at Thalavetty, he was hit down by a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-10AK 5412 driven by the 1 st respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The petitioner would contend further that he sustained serious injuries and therefore, he is entitled to compensation. Though Rs.4,01,000/- was stated to be the compensation, the claim was limited to Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶27

M.A.C.A.No.6 of 2019

¶28

¶29

4 . The 2 nd respondent insurance company filed a written statement disputing the accident and admitting the policy. The quantum of compensation is also disputed. The Tribunal relying on Exts. A1 to A4 and X1 documentary evidence, granted a sum of Rs.3,36,000/- as compensation to the petitioner.

¶30

5 . Aggrieved by the above award, the petitioner is now before this Court. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not satisfied with the amount granted under the heads 'pain and sufferings' and 'loss of amenities'. It is submitted further that, Rs.35,000/- was granted by the Tribunal under the head 'pain and sufferings' and the same is on a lower side considering the nature of injuries and treatment underwent by the petitioner consequent to the accident. It is submitted further that under the head 'loss of amenities' no amount was granted by the Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get enhanced compensation under these heads.

¶31

6 . The learned Counsel for the insurance company refuted the submissions made by the petitioner on two grounds.

¶32

7 . It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the insurance company that the petitioner limited his claim to the tune of

¶33

M.A.C.A.No.6 of 2019

¶34

¶35

Rs.1,00,000/-, however, the Tribunal was generous enough to grant Rs.3,36,000/- as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/-. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioner cannot pursue compensation in excess of what has been claimed in the petition by filing appeal. It is submitted further that, a similar matter is pending before the Division Bench of this Court to decide the question as to whether, the petitioner in a motor accident claim case can claim more amount in excess of what has been claimed in the claim petition by way of appeal.

¶36

Secondly, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the insurance company that sufficient amount under the head 'pain and suffering' had already been granted by the Tribunal. But she conceded that no amount under the head 'loss of amenities' has been awarded .

¶37

9 . While answering the first challenge raised by the learned Counsel for the insurance company, it is relevant to note that grant of compensation under a social welfare legislation like Motor Vehicles Act shall be based on the principle, just compensation. To be more explicit, whatever be the amount claimed, there is no reason to deny the amount entitled otherwise, simply for the reason that the

¶38

M.A.C.A.No.6 of 2019

¶39

¶40

amount claimed is low.

¶41

10. In a Constitution Bench decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others

¶42

[(2017) 16 SCC 680] , it has been held categorically that just compensation is the Principle. In view of the above, I am not inclined to accept this contention.

¶43

11 . Coming to grant of loss of amenities as canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, on perusal of the award, it can be seen that Rs.25,000/- was claimed under the head loss of amenities, but no amount under the said head was granted by the Tribunal. Here the petitioner, who was aged 61 years was treated as an impatient for a period of 22 days after he underwent treatment from 2.8.2014 to 23.8.2014, further, he sustained both bone Fracture left leg. Ext.A2 wound certificate and Ext.A4 discharge summary would go to show that the petitioner was treated by Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF). In such a case, the claim raised by the petitioner to grant loss of amenities is justifiable. Considering the nature of injuries and treatment as discussed above, I am inclined to grant, Rs. 25,000/- under the head loss of amenities.

¶44

12. Coming to pain and suffering, the petitioner claimed

¶45

M.A.C.A.No.6 of 2019

¶46

¶47

Rs.40,000/- and the Tribunal granted Rs.35,000/- under this head. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, Rs.5,000/- more can be granted under the head pain and sufferings.

¶48

Thus the amount enhanced would come to Rs.30,000/- as shown below:

¶49

Ite m No.	Head of claim	Amount awarded by the Tribunal (in rupees)	Amount Modfied by this Court (in rupees)	Amount Enhanced by this Court (in rupees)
1	Loss of amenities	-----	25,000/-	Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only)
2	Pain and suffering	35,000/-	40,000/-	5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)
	Total			30,000/-
				(Rupees thirty thousand only)

¶50

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part, by enhancing compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation on the enhanced

¶51

M.A.C.A.No.6 of 2019

¶52

¶53

compensation with proportionate costs, in addition to the amount already granted by the Tribunal. Respondent No.2, the insurance company shall deposit the enhanced compensation awarded in this appeal before the Tribunal together with interest and proportionate costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. On deposit, the petitioner is at liberty to realise the same.

¶54

Sd/

¶55

A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE

¶56

jm/

Bhaskaran Nair, v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaskaran Nair, v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.

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

Vijayan @ Puthoor Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Annu Poojari @ Annu Ameen Vs the State of Kerala

P.K. Thankappan Vs the State of Kerala

Ashraf, Vs Managing Director

Muhammed Muhiyudheen Vs the Oriental Insurance Company Limited

K.R.Babu Vs State of Kerala