Allowed

The Secretary, Gulf Ideal International and Charitable Trust v. Ajith John

Kerala HC24 Sept 2021MACA/2395/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an appeal challenging the compensation quantum awarded for a minor's permanent disability. Applying principles from Master Mallikarjun, it held that compensation for pain and suffering should not be awarded separately. It modified the award by deducting Rs.75,000 for pain and suffering and Rs.50,000 for loss of amenities, directing the parties to pay the reduced amount with inter

What did the court decide?

The award was modified by deducting Rs.75,000 (pain and suffering) and Rs.50,000 (loss of amenities), reducing the payable amount to Rs.3,55,840 with interest.

The Secretary, Gulf Ideal International and Charitable… — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 2ND ASWINA, 1943

¶5

MACA NO. 2395 OF 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 851/2010 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND

¶7

SESSIONS COURT IV/ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-II,

¶8

THODUPUZHA

¶9

APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶10

THE SECRETARY, GULF IDEAL INTERNATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST KODIKULAM P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT

¶12

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 TO 6:

¶13

1 AJITH JOHN AGED 7 YEARS, MINOR, S/O.JOHN, REP: BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN JOHN, VADAKKEDATH HOUSE, AGED 48, MULAPPURAM KARA, NEYYASSERY VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA 685 584.

¶14

2 MUHAMMED RAFFI S/O.IBRAHIM, VANIYAPPURAYIL HOUSE, PLANTATION BHAGAM, VANNAPPURAM KARA, THODUPUZHA 685 584. 3 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD REP; BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, XL/3599, 4TH FLOOR, ELIZABETH ALEXANDER MEMORIAL BUILDING, MARINE DRIVE, COCHIN 682 031.

¶15

M.A.C.A.No. 2395 of 2015

¶16

¶17

4 MANU VARGHESE PARACKALPURAYIDAATHIL HOUSE, MULAPPURAM, KARIMANNOOR P.O., THODUPUZHA 685 584. 5 VINOJ GEORGE KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, UPPUKUNNU P.O., THODUPUZHA 685 584. 6 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, THODUPUZHA BRANCH 685584. BY ADVS. SMT.JENCY MICHEAL, FOR R1 SRI.K.C.JOY, FOR R6 SRI.LAWRENCE DCUNHA, FOR R6 SRI.MATHEW JACOB KUNNATHU, FOR R6 SRI.MATHEW BONSTANE, FOR R6 SRI.K.MADHUSOODANAN, FOR R6 SRI.T.G.PAUL, FOR R6 SRI.K.B.RAMANAND, FOR R3 SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL, FOR R1 SMT.K.S.SHANTHI

¶18

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.09.2021, THE COURT ON 24.09.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

M.A.C.A.No. 2395 of 2015

¶20

¶21

T.R.RAVI, J.

¶22

M.A.C.A.No. 2395 of 2015

¶23

Dated this the 24^th day of September, 2021

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

The only question that arises in this appeal, which has been filed by the owner of the offending vehicle in a motor vehicle accident, is whether the Tribunal was right in awarding compensation under the heads pain and suffering and loss of amenities and conveniences, while working out the compensation following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr. reported in [(2014) 14 SCC 396] .

¶26

A minor child aged 7 years was travelling in an autorickshaw on 6.10.2010. A mini bus driven by the 2^nd respondent collided against the autorikshaw, injuring the child. The appellant is the owner of the mini bus. Admittedly, the bus did not have a valid insurance at the time of the accident and it also did not have a fitness certificate. The Tribunal found that the insurer is not liable and awarded a sum of Rs.4,80,840/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 31.12.2010, which was directed to be paid by the appellant and the 2^nd respondent. The appellant has filed this appeal

¶27

M.A.C.A.No. 2395 of 2015

¶28

¶29

challenging the quantum of compensation awarded.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents.

¶31

The fixing of liability on the appellant is not disputed. The only question to be considered is whether compensation can be granted under the heads pain and suffering and loss of amenities. In Mallikarjun(Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court evolved a method for granting compensation in case of injury suffered by children, causing them permanent disability. In paragraph 8 of the judgment, it was held that appropriate compensation for disability should take care of all the non-pecuniary damages like pain and suffering, physical shock, laws of amenities, inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration, etc., and apart from that head, there should only be the claim for actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, transportation, etc. It was further held that in case of children who suffer disability between 10% and 30% to the whole body, a sum of Rs.3 lakhs should be awarded for non-pecuniary damages. Hence, if the Tribunal is following the principles laid down in Mallikarjun(Supra) , compensation ought to have been granted for non-pecuniary damages only at the rate specified in the judgment and no amount ought to have been granted under the heads pain and suffering and loss of amenities. I find considerable force on the

¶32

M.A.C.A.No. 2395 of 2015

¶33

¶34

contention of the appellant. The counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that the judgment in Mallikarjun (Supra) does not allow compensation under the different heads for non-pecuniary damages.

¶35

In the above circumstances, this appeal is allowed and the amount of Rs.75,000/- granted towards pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- granted towards loss of amenities are deducted from the total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The award of the Tribunal stands modified permitting the 1^st respondent to realise a sum of Rs.3,55,840/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty only) with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the petition to the date of realisation with proportionate cost from the appellant and the 2^nd respondent. The appellant shall deposit the entire amount awarded after deductin g the amounts which have been deposited as directed by this Court at the time of admission of this appeal, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The disbursement of the amounts deposited by the Tribunal will be in accordance with law.

¶36

Sd/- Sd/- T.R.RAVI JUDGE

¶37

dsn

The Secretary, Gulf Ideal International and Charitable Trust v. Ajith John

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secretary, Gulf Ideal International and Charitable Trust v. Ajith John

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alex Cherian Vs Ramesh Nair

Mohanan Vs Krishnan Kutty

Sasi @ Sasindran Vs T.G.Paul

Ponnu Vs Arun Kumar

Kareem Vs Hamsa

Kadeeja Vs the Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd.