Allowed

Babu v. Principal General Manager

Kerala HC22 Oct 2021MACA/995/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the motor accident claim appeal, increasing compensation by Rs.84,000. The court corrected the appellant's income to Rs.4,500 and enhanced amounts for pain and suffering, amenities, and extra nourishment, though interest on the additional award was restricted due to prior delay condonation.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.84,000/- awarded with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing, excluding interest for the 786-day pre-delay period.

Babu Vs Principal General Manager — 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 22^ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 30TH ASWINA, 1943

¶5

MACA NO. 995 OF 2013

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DT.14.02.2013 IN OPMV 41/2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

¶7

TRIBUNAL MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶9

1 BABU, S/O.AYYAPPAN, MUNDACKAL VEEDU, NIRAPPU BHAGOM, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE. (SUBSTITUTED)

¶10

APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶11

BABU, S/O.AYYAPPAN, MUNDACKAL VEEDU, NIRAPPU BHAGOM, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE IS SUBSTITUTED AS

¶12

APPELLANTS/ORIGINAL PETITIONER & ADDL.2ND APPELLANT BABU (DIED) ADDL. 2 SANTHA BABU, W/O LATE BABU, MUNDACKAL VEEDU, NIRAPPU BHAGOM, VELLOORKUMM VILLAGE (ORIGINAL PETITIONER DIED ON 19/5/2013. ADDL. 2ND APPELLANT IS THE LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED) VIDE ORDER DATED 4/8/15 IN IA 2658/15 IN MACA 995/13

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.KOSHY

¶14

SMT.V.V.RISANI

¶15

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:

¶16

1 PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM CATHOLIC CENTRE, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682031.

¶17

2 HASAN, S/O.KOCHUNNI, VAZHAYIL VEEDU, BACK SIDE OF EEC MARKET, KAVUMKARA, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN 686661.

¶18

3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., 1ST FLOOR, THARAYIL CHAMBERS, OPPOSITE POWER HOUSE, BYPASS, VYTILLA, COCHIN-682019.

¶19

BY ADVS. SRI. M.RAJAGOPALAN SRI.LOWEL CHERIAN, FOR R3

¶20

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.09.2021, THE COURT ON 22.10.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MACA No. 995/2013

T.R.RAVI, J.

M.A.C.A.No. 995 of 2013

¶25

Dated this the 22^nd day of October, 2021

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The above appeal was originally filed by the claimant/injured in a motor accident. The original appellant died during the pendency of the appeal and his widow was brought on record as additional 2^nd appellant. The deceased/claimant sustained grievous injuries in the accident that took place on 19.10.2007. The deceased was taken to Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Muvattupuzha from where he was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. The deceased was 47 years at the time of the accident. He remained as an inpatient for 35 days. He was a construction worker and claimed to be having a monthly income of Rs.4,500/-. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.84,164/- towards compensation. It is aggrieved by the said award that the appeal is filed.

¶28

Heard Sri T.K.Koshy, learned counsel for the appellant and

¶29

Sri Lowel Cherian, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶30

The counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal

¶31

MACA No. 995/2013

¶32

¶33

ought to have taken Rs.4,500/- as notional monthly income instead of Rs.2,500/-. I find that the above submission is justified in view of the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd., reported in [ AIR 2011 SC 2951] . The counsel for the appellant further submits that the amounts awarded under the heads pain and sufferings and amenities are very low having regard to the fact that the deceased had suffered head injuries and had to remain in the hospital for 35 days. It is also submitted that a sum of Rs.3,500/- alone was granted towards bystander expenses, which is liable to be increased. So also, the appellant claims that the amount granted towards extra nourishment is also very meager having regard to the fact that the appellant had to remain in the hospital for 35 days. Another contention raised is that the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation for future treatment also having regard to the head injury suffered by the deceased. Reliance is placed on Ext.A9 which shows that the deceased was showing violent behavior and emotional disturbances.

¶34

Having considered the contentions raised by the appellants, I am of the opinion that the appellants are entitled to additional compensation under the head loss of earnings by taking the notional income as Rs.4,500/- per month for a period of one year

¶35

MACA No. 995/2013

¶36

¶37

instead of 6 months which was taken into account by the Tribunal. The appellants will be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.39,000/- under the said head. The amount awarded under the head pain and sufferings is liable to be increased to Rs.50,000/-. The appellants will be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.20,000/- under that head. The amount granted under the head loss of amenities is liable to be increased to Rs.40,000/- and the appellant will be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.20,000/- under the said head. The appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.7,000/- towards bystander expenses and a sum of Rs.3,500/- is hence liable to be increased under the head. Towards extra nourishment, I find that the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.3,500/- instead of Rs.2,000/-. The appellant will entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,500/- under that head.

¶38

The appeal is hence allowed awarding an additional compensation of Rs.84,000/- (Rupees Eighty Four Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation. The appeal was filed with a delay of 786 days. The delay was condoned by order dated 04.08.2015 on condition that the appellants will not be entitled to interest for the period of 786 days. The interest on the additional compensation awarded under this appeal, will not carry interest for the said 786

¶39

MACA No. 995/2013

¶40

¶41

days. The 3^rd respondent insurer shall deposit the additional compensation granted in this appeal along with the interest and proportionate costs, before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after deducting any amount to which the appellant is liable towards balance court fee and legal benefit fund. The disbursement of the compensation to the appellant shall be in accordance with law.

Sd/-

T.R. RAVI JUDGE

The judgment dated 22.10.2021 in MACA 995/2013 stands corrected as follows, as per order dated 07.01.2022 in RP 853/2021 in MACA 995/2013.

¶46

In page No.4 of the judgment, in paragraph No.5, the sentences ”The appeal was filed with a delay of 786 days. The delay was condoned by order dated 04.08.2015 on condition that the appellants will not be entitled to interest for the period of 786 days. The interest on the additional compensation awarded under this appeal will not carry interest for the said 786 days” stand deleted from the judgment.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

Deputy Registrar

Babu v. Principal General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu v. Principal General Manager

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

Vyshakh George Vs Kodamthuruth Grama Panchayath

Kalloor Electronics and Lightings Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Pmr Lighting Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Sajitha Vs T.P.Riyas

Antu Vs Naseema

P.C.Rasool, Rep. by His Power of Attorney Holder P.C.Rahees Vs M.Surendran