Partly allowed

Sayyad Thaha v. Jishad. B

Kerala HC20 Nov 2021MACA/2240/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the appeal in part, holding the Tribunal's compensation quantum partially unreasonable. The court enhanced pain and suffering compensation to Rs.17,500 and loss of earnings to Rs.7,500, totaling an additional Rs.8,500 with interest and costs, directing the 3rd respondent to pay through the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation by Rs.8,500 with 7.5% interest per annum from filing date till deposit, plus costs.

Sayyad Thaha Vs Jishad. B — Execution and Attachment | 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 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021/29TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

MACA NO. 2240 OF 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 03.02.2015 IN O.P.(MV)NO. 476 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

¶7

KASARGOD

¶8

APPELLANT:

¶9

SAYYAD THAHA AGED 29 YEARS

¶10

S/O.KUNHIKOYA THANGAL, SADATH MANZIL, ARLADKA, NAKRAJE POST, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.V.A.SATHEESH

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 JISHAD B., AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED KUNHI, JAMSHEEDA MANZIL, BEEJANTHADKA, P.O.PERDALA, BADIYADKA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 555.

¶14

2 M.ACHUTHAN

¶15

S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, MEETHAL MANGAD, BARA POST, UDMA, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 319.

¶16

¶17

M.A.C.A.No.2240 of 2015

¶18

3 THE BRANCH MANAGER SHRIRAM INSURANCE CO.LTD., IST FLOOR, THALANGARA GATE, OPP.IBP PETROL PUMP, NULLIPADY,KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 121.

¶19

BY ADVS. R2 BY SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON

¶20

R3 BY SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW SMT.PREETHY R. NAIR

¶21

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 20.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

M.A.C.A.No.2240 of 2015

¶24

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶25

----------------------------------------------------------M.A.C.A.No. 2240 of 2015

¶26

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 20^th day of November, 2021

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant was the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.476 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents before the Tribunal.

¶29

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 11.05.2011. It was his case that, on the aforesaid date, he was travelling in a bus driven by the 1^st respondent from Cherkkala to Nekraje and when it reached Edaneer, the bus went off the road as a result of rashness and negligence on the part of its driver and hit another bus, which came from the opposite direction. The 2^nd respondent was the owner of the bus at the time of accident. The appellant sustained avulsion of four teeth and

¶30

¶31

M.A.C.A.No.2240 of 2015

¶32

fracture of one tooth in the incident. The appellant underwent treatment and he has to abstain from work for a period of six months. He was treated as an inpatient for the period from 11.05.2021 and 12.05.2021 at E.K.Nayanar Memorial Cooperative Hospital, Kasaragod.

¶33

The appellant was earning a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. The vehicle was insured with the 3^rd respondent. Hence, the appellant claimed a compensation of Rs.75,000/- from the respondents.

¶34

The 3^rd respondent had filed a written statement in the claim petition refuting the allegations. The 3^rd respondent also disputed 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.

¶35

Exts.A1 to A6 were marked in evidence, but no evidence was adduced by the respondents.

¶36

The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and

¶37

materials on record, by its award dated 03.02.2015, allowed

¶38

¶39

M.A.C.A.No.2240 of 2015

¶40

the claim petition in part, by permitting the appellant to recover from the 3^rd respondent an amount of Rs.36,000/with interest and costs.

¶41

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

¶42

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶43

appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

¶44

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

¶45

On a re-appreciation of the pleadings and material on record, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.12,500/- as compensation for pain and suffering. The injury sustained was avulsion of four teeth and fracture of one tooth. Naturally, the appellant should have undergone treatment for restoration of teeth to normal, and that would involve suffering and pain, besides that he underwent at the time of accident. Considering those aspects, I deem it appropriate that the

¶46

¶47

M.A.C.A.No.2240 of 2015

¶48

compensation for pain and suffering is refixed as Rs.17,500/-.

¶49

The Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,000/- towards loss of earning for one month. Following the ratio in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236] , and considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2011, I hold that the appellant’s notional income can taken as Rs.7,500/- per month. Therefore, Rs.4,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of earnings for one month, can be enhanced to Rs.7,500/-.

¶50

In view of the re-fixation of the compensation for 'pain and sufferings’ at Rs.17,500/-, the enhancement is Rs.5,000/-

¶51

In view of the re-fixation of the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs.7,500/-, the compensation he is entitled for ‘loss of earnings’ is Rs.7,500/-, i.e., an enhancement of Rs.3,500/-.

¶52

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

¶53

¶54

M.A.C.A.No.2240 of 2015

¶55

compensation.

¶56

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, by enhancing the compensation by an amount of Rs.8,500/- 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.1,500/-. The 3rd 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.

¶57

SD/-

¶58

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶59

dkr

Sayyad Thaha v. Jishad. B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayyad Thaha v. Jishad. B

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

Suo Motu Vs State of Kerala

Suo Motu Vs State of Kerala

Suo Motu Vs Odamoola Anthru

Kumaresan Vs Chinnamma

Abdul Salam Vs Bindu M.K

Antony Vs Shemeer