Partly allowed

Saji K. Babu v. Shaheer Ali A.K

Kerala HC20 Nov 2021MACA/2358/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs.1,88,350. The High Court varied the monthly income basis from Rs.5,000 to Rs.9,500 and awarded additional compensation totaling Rs.1,16,840 for permanent disability, loss of amenities, pain and suffering, loss of earnings, and transportation.

What did the court decide?

Awarded an additional amount of Rs.1,16,840 to the appellant, covering permanent disability, amenities, pain and suffering, loss of earnings, and transportation, to be deposited by the insurer.

Saji K. Babu Vs Shaheer Ali A.K — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
SATURDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 29TH KARTHIKA, 1943
MACA NO. 2358 OF 2018

¶4

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 345/2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL ,KALPETTA, WAYANAD

¶5

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶6

SAJI K. BABU
S/O.BABU, AGED 39 YEARS, KADAKKAL HOUSE,
KOLAGAPPARA POST, KRISHNAGIRI VILLAGE,
SULATHANBATHERY TALUK, MEENANAADI (VIA),
WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADVS.
SRI.TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL)
SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE

¶8

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1SHAHEER ALI A.K
AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED BASHEER,
AYYAPPANKANDATHIL HOUSE, KAIPPANCHERI,
MANDANNIKKUNNU, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK,
WAYANAD DISTRICT - 673 591
(DRIVER OF SCOOTER NO.KL-73/1535)

¶10

2MUHAMMED BASHEER
S/O.KUNHID, AGED 50 YEARS, AYYAPPANKANDATHIL HOUSE,
KALPPANCHERI, MANDANNIKKUNNU, SULTHAN BATHERY POST,
WAYANAD - 673 591 [OWNER OF THE SCOOTER NO.KL-73/1535].

¶11

3TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
REGD.OFFICE, PENINSULA BUSINESS PARK, TOWER A,
15TH FLOOR, GANPATRAOKADAM MARG, OFF SENAPATI, BAPAT
MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI – 400013, MAHARASHTRA STATE,
[INSURER OF SCOOTER NO.KL-73/1535]
[POLICY NO.015265279100]

¶12

BY ADV
SRI.R.AJITH KUMAR (128/84)

¶13

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

¶14

MACA NO. 2358 OF 2018

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This is an appeal submitted by the petitioner in OP(MV) No.345/2014 on the files of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta. The claim petition was submitted by the appellant seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident occurred on 28.04.2014. He was aged 35 years and claimed to be a contractor with a monthly income of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand). The appellant contended that he sustained serious injuries in the accident and the Medical Board has issued a disability certificate wherein the percentage of permanent disability suffered by him was certified as 6%. On the basis of the same, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) was claimed as compensation.

¶18

The respondents 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement, disputing the negligence on their part. It was also contended by them that if at all it was found that they are liable to pay the compensation the same has to recovered from the Insurance Company as the vehicle was covered with a valid insurance policy at the relevant time.

¶19

The 3^rd respondent Insurance Company filed a written statement disputing the negligence and quantum of compensation

¶20

MACA NO. 2358 OF 2018

¶21

¶22

claimed. However, the coverage of policy in respect of vehicle was admitted.

¶23

Evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A9 and Ext.C1 disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Mananthavady.

¶24

After the trial, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1^st respondent and being the insurer of the vehicle, the 3^rd respondent was found liable to pay compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.1,88,350/- (Rupees one lakh eighty eight thousand three hundred and fifty only). The Tribunal directed the 3^rd respondent to deposit the said amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation along with proportionate cost. Being dissatisfied with the said compensation this appeal is filed.

¶25

Heard Sri.Tony Thomas Inchiparambil, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.R.Ajith Kumar, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent Insurance Company.

¶26

The main contention put forward by the learned counsel for

¶27

the appellant is that the amount of compensation awarded by the

¶28

MACA NO. 2358 OF 2018

¶29

¶30

Tribunal is very low. It was pointed out that the monthly income taken by the Tribunal is only Rs.5,000/- which is extremely on lower side. It was also pointed out that no amount was granted under the head of loss of amenities. Similarly the amounts awarded under the head of ‘Loss of earnings’ and ‘Transport to Hospital’ and ‘Pain and sufferings’ are also on lower side.

¶31

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurance company would seriously oppose the same by pointing out that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are reasonable and no interference is warranted.

¶32

The first aspect to be taken into consideration is the monthly income taken by the Tribunal, which is Rs.5000/-. This is an accident occurred in the year 2014. It is true that even though the appellant claimed that he was a contractor, no evidence could be adduced by him to establish the same. However, even in the absence of any evidence to that effect, the monthly income of Rs.5,000/- in respect of the accident occurred in the year 2014 is very low. In my view whatever be the nature of avocation, a claimant who sustained injuries in an accident in the year 2014 requires compensation by taking the monthly income at

¶33

MACA NO. 2358 OF 2018

¶34

¶35

much higher rate than Rs.5000/-. In Ramachandrappa v. Manager,

¶36

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2014) 2 SCC 735], the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down the guidelines in this regard and by following the principles laid down therein, this Court is consistently fixing the basic monthly income as Rs.4,500/- for the year 2004 and used to make an addition of Rs.500/each per year for reckoning the monthly income in respect of the accidents occurred in subsequent years. While adopting the said method of assessment, which is practical in nature, the monthly income in this case can be reasonably fixed as Rs.9,500/- as the accident has occurred in the year 2014. While re-working the compensation under the head of ‘Permanent disability’, with the above revised monthly income, the total amount comes to Rs.1,09,440/- (9500x12x16x6%). The Tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.57,600/- under this head and therefore, the balance amount receivable by the appellant shall be Rs.51,840/-.

¶37

It is seen that no amount is awarded under the head of ‘Loss

¶38

of amenities’. I am of the view that compensation under the head of ‘Loss of amenities’ is an indispensable part of compensation in a case of

¶39

MACA NO. 2358 OF 2018

¶40

¶41

injury. Under no circumstances that can be denied to a victim. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that a compensation Rs.30,000/- under this head, would do justice to the appellant. Similarly, amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head of ‘Pain and suffering’ is Rs.30,000/- and in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in the light of the date of accident and nature of injuries, I am of the view that a further sum of Rs.10,000/- can be granted to the appellant.

¶42

Further, consequent to the revision of monthly income as Rs.9,500/-, the appellant is entitled for additional amount under the head of ‘Loss of earning’. The amount already awarded by the Tribunal under this head is Rs.25,000/- which was calculated at the rate of Rs.5,000/for a period of five months. In the light of revision of monthly income as Rs.9,500/- the amount of compensation receivable by the appellant is fixed as Rs.47,500/- (9500x5). As the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.25,000/-, the additional amount entitled to by the appellant is Rs.22,500/-. Similarly, the learned counsel for the appellant further pointed out that some additional amount is to be granted under the head of ‘Transportation’, as he is a resident of Wayanad and the treatment

¶43

MACA NO. 2358 OF 2018

¶44

¶45

availed by him was at Baby Memorial Hospital, Kohikode. Several times he was forced to travel from Wayanad to Kozhikode. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.2,500/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that a further sum of Rs.2,500/- can be granted.

¶46

Accordingly, the additional amount receivable by the appellant is fixed as Rs.1,16,840/- (Rupees one lakh sixteen thousand eight hundred

¶47

and forty only) (51,840+30000+10000+22500+2500). The 3^rd respondent insurance company shall deposit the said amount along with interest and proportionate cost as ordered by the Tribunal, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that while computing the interest the insurance company shall be entitled to exclude 775 days’ as it was the period of delay in filing the appeal and the aforesaid delay was condoned by this Court in C.M.Appl. No.2694/18, subject to such condition.

¶48

Sd/ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶49

scs

Saji K. Babu v. Shaheer Ali A.K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saji K. Babu v. Shaheer Ali A.K

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

Bindu John Vs State of Kerala

Joosa Stephen Vs State of Kerala

Rahul Sasi Vs State of Kerala

Safiya Vs Bijoy

Rajesh K Vs Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited

Josy Paul Akkara Vs the Manager