Allowed

M.K.Prakasan v. Sini Jojo

Kerala HC10 Dec 2021MACA/697/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed an appeal filed by an injured passenger against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The court enhanced compensation by rejecting the Tribunal's lower income estimate, reducing the disability percentage, and misapplication of the age multiplier, resulting in additional damages.

What did the court decide?

Awarded enhanced compensation of ₹1,99,140 with 9% interest from 24.12.2011 to date of realization.

M.K.Prakasan Vs Sini Jojo — Insurance | 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 DECEMBER 2021 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

MACA NO. 697 OF 2014

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1655/2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOTTAYAM

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

M.K.PRAKASAN 425-MAYILANTHARA (H), PASHANITHODU KARA, EDACOCHI P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP

¶9

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 SINI JOJO PONNATTUSSERIL (H), KUMARAKOM, P.O., KOTTAYAM.685001 2 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. KOTTAYAM.685001 3 JOJO EAPEN PONNATTUSSERIL (H), KUMARAKOM, P.O., KOTTAYAM.685001 BY ADVS. R1 & R3 BY SMT.TISSY ROSE K CHERIYAN SRI JITHIN SAJI ISSAC R2 BY DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.10.2021, THE COURT ON 10.12.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

M.A.C.A. No.697 of 2014

¶12

¶13

T.R. RAVI, J.

¶14

-------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.697 of 2014

¶15

Dated this the 10^th day of December, 2021

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The appeal has been filed by the claimant in O.P. (MV)No.1655/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam claiming enhanced compensation. The bus in which the appellant was travelling on 14.10.2010, hit against a telephone post and the appellant who was seated on the side of the bus got crushed in between the bus and the post and he sustained serious injuries. He had sustained Type I open comminuted fracture of left elbow, fracture of left elbow, fracture of left humerus and left ulna and lacerated wound on the side swap of the left hand and radial nerve palsy. He was taken to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, where he was treated as an inpatient from 14.10.2010 to 20.10.2010. He was again admitted in the hospital on 16.6.2011 and remained there till 02.07.2011. The appellant claimed that he was 50 years of age at the time of the accident and he was employed as a Marketing Executive of RMP Info-tech, earning ₹12,500/- per month. The claim petition was allowed by the Tribunal granting ₹1,90,000/- as compensation.

¶18

2 . Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respective

¶19

M.A.C.A. No.697 of 2014

¶20

¶21

counsel for the respondents.

¶22

3 . The main contention of the learned counsel for the

¶23

appellant is that the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the notional monthly income of the appellant as ₹5,000/-. It is submitted that going by the yardstick in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd., reported in [AIR 2011 SC 2951] , a Coolie in 2010 would have been earning ₹7,500/- per month and as such, fixing the monthly income of a Marketing Executive at ₹5,000/was unjust. It is also contended that the Medical Board had in Ext.X1 disability certificate found that the appellant had 24.2% disability consequent to the fractures sustained in the left hand. The Tribunal had considered only 15% disability for the purpose of arriving at the compensation for permanent disability. Another contention taken is that the Tribunal fixed the age of the appellant as 51 years and applied the multiplier of 11 instead of the correct age of 50 years, which would require the multiplier of 13 to be adopted.

¶24

I find considerable force in the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. In the absence of any proof regarding the income, the Tribunal ought to have followed the yardstick in Ramachandrappa (supra) . So also there is no reason to reduce the disability from 24.2% to 15%, particularly since no contra evidence

¶25

M.A.C.A. No.697 of 2014

¶26

¶27

was let in. Regarding the age, Ext.A6 wound certificate and Ext.A10 discharge certificate would show that the age of the appellant is 50 years and there was no reason why the Tribunal should have applied the age as 51 years. The appellant is hence entitled to enhanced compensation on the basis of the disability of 24.2%, multiplier of 13 and monthly income of ₹7,500/-. The amount payable towards compensation for permanent disability would thus be ₹2,83,140/(7500x12x13x24.2%). After deducting the amount of ₹99,000/granted by the Tribunal, the appellant will be entitled to an additional compensation of ₹1,84,140/- under that head. The loss of earnings on the basis of the monthly income of ₹7,500/- will be ₹45,000/-. After deducting a sum of ₹30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant will be entitled to an additional compensation of ₹15,000/- under that head.

¶28

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is awarded an enhanced compensation of ₹1,99,140/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand One Hundred and Forty only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition (24.12.2011) till the date of realisation, with proportionate costs. The 2 nd respondent insurer shall deposit the additional compensation granted in this appeal along with the interest and

¶29

M.A.C.A. No.697 of 2014

¶30

¶31

proportionate costs, before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after deducting any

¶32

amount to which the appellant is liable towards balance court fee and legal benefit fund. The disbursement of compensation to the appellant

¶33

shall be in accordance with law.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

T.R. RAVI JUDGE

¶36

dsn

M.K.Prakasan v. Sini Jojo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Prakasan v. Sini Jojo

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

Thiruvananthapuram Corporation Vs Lijo Abraham

Fathima Navaz Vs Thrikkakara Municipality

Mattammel Baby Vs State of Kerala

John Aruja Vs National Insurance Co.Ltd.

Betty Jose, Vs Akalakunnam Grama Panchayath

Ignatious K.J. Vs Kerala State Pollution Control Board