Partly allowed

United Indis Insurance Company Limited v. Suhara Packayi

Kerala HC10 Sept 2021MACA/3031/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the Tribunal's award in a motor accident claim dispute. While upholding compensation for disability, pain and suffering, and interest, the Court reduced the amount awarded for 'loss of earning power' from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 0, recognizing it is subsumed under 'disability'. The total compensation was adjusted to Rs. 4,55,948.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal's award was modified to reduce compensation for loss of earning power by Rs. 10,000; total payable is Rs. 4,55,948.

United Indis Insurance Company Limited Vs Suhara Packayi — 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 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 19TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

MACA NO. 3031 OF 2014

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 845/2012 OF III ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶7

APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶8

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER,REGIONAL OFFICE, "SHARANYA",HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW

¶9

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶10

SUHARA PACKAYI W/O.LATE PACKAYI,NEERUNKAL HOUSE, RAJAGIRI.P.O,S.KALAMASSERY, PIN-683104.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.ANILA PETER SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SRI.J.VIVEK GEORGE

¶12

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

M.A.C.A.No.3031 of 2014

¶14

:-2-:

¶15

T.R.RAVI, J.

¶16

M.A.C.A.No.3031 of 2014

¶17

Dated this th 10^th day of September, 2021

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

This appeal is filed by the insurer who was the 3^rd respondent in OP(MV)No.845/2012 before the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The respondent while standing by the side of a road was hit by a car causing serious injuries. She preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal and by award dated 30.07.2014, the Tribunal ordered a compensation of Rs.4,65,948/with interest at 9%. The first contention of the appellant/insurer is that the Tribunal has granted excessive amount under the head “pain and suffering” by granting Rs.50,000/-. Another contention is that amount has been granted for future treatment as Rs.20,000/-, even though the Tribunal had recorded a finding that there was no evidence available on record regarding the necessity for future treatment. The third contention is that after granting compensation under the head 'disability', no further amount could have been

¶20

M.A.C.A.No.3031 of 2014

¶21

:-3-:

¶22

granted for compensation for “loss of earning power” going by the dictum of the Full Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Hariprasad reported in [2005 (4) KLT 977] . Reference is also made to the decision in T.N.Transport Corpn.

¶23

Ltd. v. S.Rajapriya & Ors. reported in [(2005) 6 SCC 236] to submit that the prevailing rate of interest should have been taken into account and only interest @ 7.5% ought to have been granted.

¶24

Heard Sri Mathew Jacob, Senior Advocate, instructed by

¶25

Sri Jacob Mathew on behalf of the appellant and Smt. K.N.Rajani on behalf of the respondent.

¶26

It can be seen that the respondent had suffered fracture of the 2^nd to 7^th ribs on the left side, trimalleolar fracture right with ankle subluxation, fracture superior and inferior pubic rami, fracture of olecranon right elbow, 3 part fractures of proximal humerus with severe communution, acetabulum fracture right anterior column plus anterior wall, lacerated wound on the right ankle, forehead and right elbow, punctured wound at the forehead, lacerated wound on the chin, abrasion on the face and extremities. The monthly income was fixed at Rs.4,000/- for the reason that the respondent was a

¶27

M.A.C.A.No.3031 of 2014

¶28

:-4-:

¶29

house wife. Ext.X1 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, General Hospital, Ernakulam was relied on for ascertaining the permanent disability at 20%. I find that the compensation granted under the head disability is justified. The contention that loss of earning power should not have been treated as a separate head of compensation after having granted compensation under the head “disability” is justified and the award is liable to be interfered with on that count.

¶30

On the contention that excess amount has been granted towards “pain and suffering”, having regard to the nature of injuries and the fact that the respondent who is a home maker who had to be hospitalised from 26.1.2012 to 23.2.2012 and the fact that Rs.2,79,447.85 was spent towards medical expenses alone, I find that the amount granted by the Tribunal is reasonable and does not require any interference.

¶31

Regarding compensation for future treatment which has been granted by the Tribunal, it is correct that in para.9, the Tribunal has noted that there is no evidence to show that it is necessary for continuing treatment. However, the discharge summary would show

¶32

M.A.C.A.No.3031 of 2014

¶33

:-5-:

¶34

the requirement for future treatment, after the treatment that was given to the respondent, which includes fixation of ankle, fixation of posterior malleolus with 3.5mm LCP synthes with 2 proximal and 2 distal screws, fixation of lateral malleolus with 5 hole recon locking plate (synthes) with 2 proximal and 2 distal screws and fixation of medial malleolus with 3.5m LCP (synthes) with 2 proximal and 2 distal screws. In the above circumstances, the grant of Rs.20,000/towards future treatment also cannot be said to be not justified.

¶35

As far as the contention that interest granted is on the higher side, the judgment relied on by the counsel relates to the year 2001 and it will not be fair to apply the same yardstick in a case where the accident took place in 2012. There is no reason to interfere with the interest awarded by the Tribunal.

¶36

In the result, the award of the Tribunal is modified by reducing the same to Rs.10,000/- awarded towards loss of earning and directing the payment of Rs.4,55,948/- (Rupees Four Lakhs

¶37

Fifty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Eight only) .

¶38

At the time of admission, this Court had granted a stay on condition that the appellant deposits 50% of the award amount

¶39

M.A.C.A.No.3031 of 2014

¶40

:-6-:

¶41

which is permitted to be withdrawn by the claimant. The balance

¶42

amount payable as per this modified judgment will be deposited by the appellant before the Tribunal with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after deducting any amount to which the respondent is liable towards balance court fee and legal benefit fund.

¶43

The disbursement of the compensation to the respondent

¶44

shall be in accordance with law.

¶45

The appeal is disposed of as above.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

T.R.RAVI JUDGE

¶48

dsn

United Indis Insurance Company Limited v. Suhara Packayi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United Indis Insurance Company Limited v. Suhara Packayi

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

Hemalatha Vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd

T.V. Mathai Vs P.A. Baiju

M/S.Wittur Elevator Components India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench

Abdul Basith Vs Sainul Abideen

Dr. V.V Haridas, Vs Sri.Aby George

St. George Orthodox Syrian Church Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer