Partly allowed

Sajeendran Nair v. Varghese

Kerala HC3 Jun 2022MACA/1106/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Pensioner/Claimant appealed against the compensation awarded in a motor accident involving a scooter and an autorickshaw. The High Court found the quantum insufficient, primarily regarding notional income and disability assessment, and enhanced the award to Rs.1,58,720/- with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation awarded at Rs.1,58,720/- with 7% interest payable from the date of the award.

Sajeendran Nair Vs Varghese — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

M.A.C.A. NO.1106 OF 2018

¶6

(AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 24.02.2018 IN OPMV 663/2014 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA)

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

SAJEENDRAN NAIR, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, USHA BHAVAN, CHATHIYARA MURI, THAMARAKULAM VILLAGE.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.ARUN BOSE SRI.B.BIPIN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:

¶11

1 VARGHESE, S/O.PHILIPOSE, KANNEMPALLIL, VETTIKODU, KATTANAM, MAVELIKARA - 690 505.

¶12

2 MUHAMMED KUNJU, SHALIMAR, ELIPPAKULAM P.O., MAVELIKARA, PIN - 690 503.

¶13

3 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶14

BY ADV SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR, SC, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY.

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MACA No.1106/2018

JUDGMENT

(Dated :3^rd June, 2022)

¶20

Aggrieved by the amount of compensation

¶21

awarded in O.P.(MV)No.663 of 2014 on the file of

¶22

the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mavelikara, this appeal is filed by the claimant.

¶23

On 13.03.2014, at 2.00 p.m., the

¶24

petitioner was riding a scooter bearing Reg.No.Kl-31/E-2405 along Kattanam Meppallikutti road and when he reached Meppallikutti, he was

¶25

knocked down by a goods autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-31/C-5849, which came from behind and

¶26

thereby he sustained serious injuries. The autorickshaw was driven by the 1^st respondent and

¶27

the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the goods autorickshaw. The 2^nd respondent is the owner of the goods autorickshaw and the 3^rd respondent is

¶28

MACA No.1106/2018

¶29

¶30

the insurer. The petitioner claimed Rs.2,00,000/as compensation.

¶31

The 1^st and 2^nd respondents were set

¶32

ex-parte. The 3^rd respondent insurance company filed written statement contending that the autorickshaw involved in the accident did not have a valid insurance policy at the time of the accident. The alleged accident happened due to the negligence on the part of the 1^st respondent was denied.

¶33

On the side of the petitioner,

¶34

Exts.A1 to A9 documents were produced and marked.

¶35

There was no documentary evidence on the side of the respondents. Ext.X1 disability certificate was marked. The tribunal on a consideration of the

¶36

entire aspects of the case awarded a sum of Rs.1,19,842/- towards the claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.

¶37

¶38

MACA No.1106/2018

¶39

The appeal is filed challenging the

¶40

quantum, mainly regarding the notional income that

¶41

was taken by the Tribunal. It is seen that the Tribunal has taken notional income of the petitioner as Rs.5,000/-, but in the claim it was Rs.10,000/-. Relying on the decision reported in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance

¶42

Insurance Company Limited [2011 (13) SCC 236] , the accident which happened in the year 2014, Rs.9,500/- was taken as notional income. As far as the permanent disability is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed 11% permanent disability evidencing the medical certificate issued by the Govt.Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha, which was constituted by the Medical Board. The Tribunal has reduced the same to 6%, for the reason that the doctor who issued the medical certificate was not examined to prove the same. In the decision

¶43

MACA No.1106/2018

¶44

¶45

reported in Karunakaran v. Abdul Rasheed [2015(4)

¶46

KLT 465] , it is held that, when the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, the court below was not justified in rejecting the same, for the reason that the doctor who issued the

¶47

certificate was not examined. Relying on the said decision, the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board evidencing 11% disability is accepted.

¶48

The learned counsel for the

¶49

petitioner also contended that, though the petitioner had to undergo complete rest for 5 months, the loss of earning is granted only for three months. Taking into consideration of the injuries sustained, I am of the opinion that the petitioner had taken bed rest for 5 months without any earning, hence the loss of earnings can be worked out to Rs.9,500 x 5 - 15,000(amount already

¶50

MACA No.1106/2018

¶51

¶52

granted) = 32,500/-. For pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-; considering the injury sustained, I enhance the same by Rs.10,000/- more on that head. Regarding the disability income, since the petitioner was aged 46 years, the multiplier to be taken is 13 and the income taken as Rs.9,500/- per month. Hence the amount calculated would be 9,500 x 12 x 13 x 11 / 100 = 1,63,020/-. The court below has awarded Rs.46,800/- under the head disability income. The balance amount would come to Rs.1,16,220/-. So the total compensation would come to Rs.1,58,720/-.

¶53

Resultantly, appeal is partly allowed and the petitioner is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,58,720/- with 7% interest from the date of the award till realisation.

¶54

BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

Sajeendran Nair v. Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajeendran Nair v. Varghese

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

Muhammad Shafi Vs Sheeja K.I.

Gopinathan Vs Raji @ Rajeswari

M.Ramla Vs a.C.Ashraf

Aravindan P Vs Valsan Padinhare Purayil

Joby Andrews Vs Dr.Mathew Abraham

Meenu Vs Rajesh