Allowed

P.K. Rameshan v. Zaleel Babu Z.

Kerala HC26 Nov 2021MACA/864/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Motor Accident Claims Appeal, the High Court allowed the petitioner's claim for enhanced compensation. The Court re-fixed the petitioner's monthly income, increased the disability period to six months, fixed disability compensation based on 11% disability, and enhanced loss of amenities from Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,000, totaling an additional Rs.97,700.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.97,700 awarded with 8% interest and proportionate costs of Rs.5,000 to the petitioner.

P.K. Rameshan Vs Zaleel Babu Z. — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

MACA NO. 864 OF 2014

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 01.04.2013 IN OPMV 247/2012 OF PRINCIPAL

¶7

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE.

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶9

P.K. RAMESHAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN (LATE), PEEDIKAKKANDY HOUSE, KALLAI P. O, KOZHIKODE.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI. R. SUDHISH SMT. M. MANJU

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

*1 ZALEEL BABU Z. ZAINUDHEEN, 146 (1/138), ALIF MANZIL, ILLIKKAL, KADALUNDI, KOZHIKODE - 673 302. (DELETED)

¶13

***( R1 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 21/02/2019 IN IA 1/19 IN MACA 864/2014.) 2 M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 4TH FLOOR, PARCO TOWERS, P.M. TAJ ROAD, P.B.NO.207, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.**

¶14

R2 - SRI. E.M JOSEPH

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

M.A.C.A No.864 OF 2014

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner in O.P (MV) No.247 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode has preferred this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The parties in this appeal are referred to as per the status in the claim petition. The case of the petitioner is that he sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident which happened on 25.04.2009 while he was travelling on a motor cycle from Beypore to Meenchanda. The motor c ycle which the petitioner was travelling was hit by another motor cycle with Registration No.KL-11/R-4376 ridden by the 1^st respondent and the petitioner sustained serious injuries. The 1^st respondent himself is the owner of the said motor cycle. The 2^nd respondent is the insurer of the vehicle.

¶20

M.A.C.A No.864 OF 2014

¶21

¶22

According to the petitioner, the accident

¶23

happened due to the negligent riding of the motorcycle by the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent was set exparte by the tribunal. The Insurance Company entered appearance and contended that the accident happened due to the negligence of the petitioner. The 2^nd respondent admitted that the vehicle owned by the 1^st respondent was covered by a valid policy of insurance at the time of accident. They also contended that the amounts claimed under various heads are excessive.

¶24

The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the negligence of the 1^st respondent. Though the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as total compensation, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.45,010/with 8% interest per annum. The 2^nd respondent Insurance Company was directed to satisfy the award.

¶25

The petitioner has preferred this appeal contending that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are inadequate. According to the

¶26

M.A.C.A No.864 OF 2014

¶27

¶28

petitioner he was an electrician and was getting Rs.4,000/- as wages per month. The Tribunal has taken his monthly salary as Rs.3,500/- for assessing the loss of earnings. I re-fix the income of the petitioner for the purpose of assessing the compensation as Rs.4,000/ -. Since the petitioner was hospitalised for a period of 28 days and going by the nature of injuries, I take the period of his disability as six months, instead of 3 months as arrived by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.10,500/- for loss of earnings. The petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.24,000/- (4000x6=24,000) for loss of earnings. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.13,500/- (24,000-10,500) towards loss of earnings.

¶29

It is seen that no amount is awarded by the Tribunal under the head disability compensation. On an application made by the petitioner before this Court the petitioner was referred to a Medical Board and the Medical Board has certified the percentage of disability as

¶30

M.A.C.A No.864 OF 2014

¶31

¶32

11% and the disability certificate is part of records in this appeal. The petitioner was aged 40 years at the time of accident and the Tribunal has rightly taken the multiplier as '15'. Since the Medical Board has certified the percentage of disability, the disability compensation is fixed as follows: 4,000x12x15x11/100 = 79,200/-. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.79,200/- as disability compensation.

¶33

For loss of amenities of life only an amount of

¶34

Rs.5,000/- has been granted. I feel that Rs.10,000/- is just and reasonable compensation for the loss of amenities of life, taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for an enhanced amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head loss of amenities of life.

¶35

Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs.97,700/-

¶36

(13,500+79,200+5,000).

¶37

M.A.C.A No.864 OF 2014

¶38

¶39

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and the petitioner is awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs.97,700/- (Rupees Ninety Seven thousand seven hundred only) with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation, with proportionate costs which I fix as Rs.5,000/-. The 2^nd respondent Insurance Company shall deposit the additional compensation granted in this appeal along with interest and proportionate costs (Rs.5000/-), before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶42

SPR

P.K. Rameshan v. Zaleel Babu Z.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K. Rameshan v. Zaleel Babu Z.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aleyamma Jacob, Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

B2B Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ths Leisure Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.

Reena Chandy Vs Union of India

The President, S.N.D.P. Yogam Vs State of Kerala

Yhe President Vs the State of Kerala

Sindhu B. Vs v.Balachandran