Allowed

Rajesh K v. Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited

Kerala HC20 Nov 2021MACA/4083/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed an appeal against the quantum of compensation awarded in a motor accident case. The High Court enhanced the compensation by revising the monthly income estimate and increasing awards for loss of earning, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities.

What did the court decide?

The respondent insurance company directed to deposit additional compensation of Rs.65,000 along with interest and costs within three months.

Rajesh K Vs Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

M.A.C.A.No.4083/17

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶6

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

¶7

1943

¶8

MACA NO. 4083 OF 2017

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 449/2014 OF DISTRICT

¶10

COURT & SESSIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

¶11

TRIBUNAL ,KASARAGOD, KASARGOD

¶12

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶13

RAJESH K AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN K.V, H/O. RAJALAKSHMI K, KALOOT VEEDU, KOVVAL STORE P.O, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADV SRI.M.V.AMARESAN

¶15

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.2:

¶16

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED A-501,5TH FLOOR, BUILDING NO.4INFINITY PARK, DINDOSH MALAD,(E) MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA PIN 400 097.

¶17

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

¶18

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

M.A.C.A.No.4083/17

JUDGMENT

The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.(MV).No.449/2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod. The aforesaid claim petition was filed by him seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident occurred on 05.04.2014. He was aged 38 years and a driver by profession with a monthly income of Rs.18,000/-. According to him he sustained very serious injuries, which affected his avocation. In such circumstances, he sought for a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the same.

¶23

The insurance company alone contested the claim petition by filing a written statement. Even though they disputed negligence and quantum of compensation, coverage of policy in respect of the vehicle, was admitted.

¶24

The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A8 from the side of the appellant. No evidence was adduced from the side of the respondents. After the trial, the Tribunal passed an award allowing the appellant to realize an amount of

¶25

M.A.C.A.No.4083/17

¶26

¶27

Rs.2,24,700/- from the respondents along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, this appeal is filed.

¶28

Heard Sri.Aravind S., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.R.Ajith Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent insurance company. The main dispute raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to the quantum of compensation. According to him, the amount awarded under the heads of loss of earning, pain and suffering and loss of amenities are on lower side. It was also pointed out that the impact of the injuries in his career was also not taken care of by the Tribunal.

¶29

The learned counsel for the insurance company would

¶30

seriously oppose the said contention by pointing out that reasonable amounts have been awarded by the Tribunal and no interference is warranted.

¶31

When the facts and circumstances of this case is considered, it is seen that the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the injured as Rs.6,000/-. The appellant is claimed to

¶32

M.A.C.A.No.4083/17

¶33

¶34

be a driver and the accident occurred in the year 2014. Whatever be the nature of avocation, fixing an amount of Rs.6,000/- pertaining to an accident occurred in the year 2014 is extremely on the lower side. Going by the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735], the amount which can be reasonably fixed as monthly income for an accident occurred in the year 2014 can be Rs.9,500/-. This court is consistently determining the monthly income, in the light of the above judgments, by fixing the base monthly income as Rs 4,500/in respect of an accident occurred in the year, 2004 and by adding Rs 500/- each per year, in respect of the accidents occurred in the subsequent years. Hence, I fix Rs.9,500/- as the monthly income in this case. Consequent to the revision of monthly income the appellant will be entitled for an additional amount under the head of loss of earning. It is seen that the

¶35

M.A.C.A.No.4083/17

¶36

¶37

Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.18,000/- under this head, which was calculated at the rate of Rs 6,000/- for three months. The appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for 16 days and the injuries are also serious. The profession which he has engaged in, requires physical fitness. Certainly the injuries would have prevented him from attending his regular employment for a period of at least three months. In such circumstances, I am of the view that loss of earning must be calculated at least for a period of four months. As I have already fixed the monthly income as Rs.9,500/-, the compensation payable under this head would come to Rs.38,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.18,000/- and additional amount of Rs.20,000/- is reasonable for the appellant.

¶38

Other heads which requires re-consideration is compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenities. The amount awarded under the head of pain and suffering is just Rs.10,000/-, which is very meager. The person who has undergone 16 days hospitalization in the year 2014 deserves

¶39

M.A.C.A.No.4083/17

¶40

¶41

more amount of compensation under this head. The nature of injuries sustained by the appellant in this case also makes the enhancement of compensation under this head necessary. I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, an additional amount of Rs.25,000/- can be granted under this head. Similarly, under the head loss of amenities, the amount awarded is Rs.25,000/-. In my view a further amount of Rs.20,000/- would do justice to the appellant.

¶42

Thus the total additional amount of compensation receivable by the appellant is fixed as Rs.65,000/- [20000+25000+20000] [Rupees sixty five thousand only] and the respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the said amount along with interest and proportionate costs as ordered by the Tribunal, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶43

Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶44

DG/22.11.21

Rajesh K v. Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh K v. Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited

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

Saji K. Babu Vs Shaheer Ali A.K

Josy Paul Akkara Vs the Manager