Partly allowed

Prasanna Babu @ Babu v. Aliarkutty

Kerala HC20 Nov 2021MACA/335/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a motor accident claims appeal partly. The court re-fixed the petitioner's monthly income to Rs. 7,500 based on Apex Court precedents for manual labourers and recalculated compensation for loss of earnings and permanent disability based on the certified 18.15% disability. An additional amount was also awarded for loss of amenities.

What did the court decide?

The appellant was granted an enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,62,835/- with interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs of Rs. 3,000/-, to be deposited by the third respondent.

Prasanna Babu @ Babu Vs Aliarkutty — Medical Negligence | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 29TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

MACA NO. 335 OF 2014

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OPMV 952/2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

¶7

TRIBUNAL PALA, KOTTAYAM

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶9

PRASANNA BABU @ BABU S/O.VASU ACHARI, THEKKEKUNNUVELIL HOUSE, RAMAKKALMEDU KARA, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL) SRI.MANU TOM

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 ALIARKUTTY @ GEEYASH S/O.ABDUL SALAM, EDATHARA HOUSE, BALANPILLA CITY BHAGOM, RAMAKKALMEDU KARA-685552

¶14

2 ALIYARKUTTY S/O.ABDUL SALAM, 205 (4/1.50), KARUNAPURAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶15

3 THE MANAGER THE CHOLAMANDALAM M.S.GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., HEAD OFFICE, DARE HOUSE, IIND FLOOR, N.S.C.BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-600001.

¶16

BY ADVS.

¶17

SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.

¶18

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

MACA 335/2014

JUDGMENT

The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.952/2010 has filed this appeal aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. The parties in this appeal are referred to as per the status in the claim petition. While the petitioner was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-7/AX-4757 from Balanpilla City to Kompumukku, it turned upside down and she fell down and sustained injuries. The petitioner contended that the accident happened due to the negligent driving of the autorickshaw by the first respondent. The second respondent is the owner of the said vehicle and the third respondent is its insurer. The petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.3,66,000/- which was limited to Rs.2,50,000/-.

¶23

Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

¶24

The third respondent insurance company entered appearance and filed written statement admitting that the vehicle was covered by a valid policy of insurance as on the date of the accident; however, contended

¶25

MACA 335/2014

¶26

¶27

that there was no valid fitness certificate for the vehicle at the time of

¶28

the accident. They also contended that the amount of compensation claimed is excessive.

¶29

The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the negligent driving of the autorickshaw by the first respondent and that the second respondent has not produced the fitness certificate of the said vehicle and there is violation of policy conditions. The insurance company was directed to pay the amount of compensation reserving the right to recover it from the second respondent, the owner of the vehicle.

¶30

The Tribunal awarded the following compensation under various heads:-

¶31

Part I	Amount claimed	Amount awarded
	(in Rs.)	(in Rs.)
Loss of earnings	70,000/-	24,000/-(6000x4 months)

¶32

MACA 335/2014

¶33

¶34

Transport to Hospital	10,000/-	4,000/-
Extra-nourishment	5,000/-	1000/-
Damages to clothing	1,000/-	Not entitled
Treatment Expenses	20,000/-	3,000/-
Bystander Expenses	10,000/-	1,800/- (200x12 days)
Pain and suffering	50,000/-	20,000/-
Permanent Disability	1,50,000/-	65,520/- (6,000x12x13x7/100)
Loss of amenities	50,000	Not entitled
Total	3,66,000/-	1,19,320/-
claim is limited to	2,50,000/-

¶35

The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.6,000/-. The petitioner is a carpenter. Going by the decision of the Apex Court reported in Ramachandrappa v . Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [2011 (13) SCC 236: AIR 2011 SC 2951] , the notional/monthly income of the petitioner who is a manual labourer has to be taken as Rs.7,500/-.

¶36

MACA 335/2014

¶37

¶38

Accordingly, the monthly income of the appellant/petitioner is re-fixed as Rs.7,500/-. Taking the monthly income as Rs.7,500/-, the appellant will be entitled for an amount of Rs.30,000/- (7500x4 months) under the head loss of earnings. Thus, an additional amount of Rs.6,000/(30,000-24,000) is granted under the said head. The Medical Board has fixed the disability of the petitioner as 18.15% as per Ext.X1 certificate produced before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has taken the disability only as 7% and awarded an amount of Rs.65,520/- under the head permanent disability. Taking the disability as 18.15%, I re-fix the amount of compensation under the said head as Rs.2,12,355/(7500x12x13x18.15/100) and the appellant is entitled to get an additional sum of Rs.1,46,835/-.

¶39

Though the appellant claimed an amount of Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities in life, no amount is awarded by the Tribunal under this head. Going by the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant, I am of the view that an amount of Rs.10,000/- will be a reasonable compensation to be awarded under this head. It is awarded.

¶40

MACA 335/2014

¶41

¶42

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is granted an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,62,835/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation, with proportionate costs, which is fixed as Rs.3,000/-. The third respondent insurance company shall deposit the said amount along with interest and the costs as fixed above before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The insurance company can recover the amount from the second

¶43

respondent, as found by the Tribunal.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶46

spc/

Prasanna Babu @ Babu v. Aliarkutty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanna Babu @ Babu v. Aliarkutty

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

Sarun G. Vs State of Kerala

K.X.Martin & Others Vs K.S.E.B. & Another

Abdulrasak Vs the District Collector

Sajeena S. Vs Irshad a.

Lekha Vs Mohanan Nair

Amina Beevi Vs Rejendran