T.K. Kishore Vs Lijo

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 2793 OF 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 404/2005 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , THRISSUR

¶7

APPELLANT:

¶8

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,THRISSUR NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, “SHARANYA”,HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11 BY ADVS.

¶9

SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 LIJO M.J.,S/O.JOSE, MALIEKKAL HOUSE, PUTHUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680 320

¶12

2 JOJU,S/O. ANTONY, KODIYAN HOUSE, PAYYAPPILLY MOOLA, PUTHUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680 320

¶13

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.08.2022, ALONG WITH MACA.1322/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶15

PRESENT

¶16

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶17

WEDNESDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA,

¶18

1944

¶19

MACA NO. 1322 OF 2018

¶20

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 404/2005 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , THRISSUR

¶21

APPELLANT:

¶22

T.K. KISHORE,AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. KUTTAN, THUPPINIKATTU HOUSE, NAMBIAR ROAD, P.O.PUTHUR, THRISSUR.

¶23

BY ADV SRI.K.A.SREEJITH

¶24

RESPONDENTS:

¶25

1 LIJO,S/O. JOSE, MALIAKKEL HOUSE, P.O.PUTHUR, THRISSUR - 680 014.

¶26

2 JOJU,S/O. ANTONY, KODIYAN HOUSE, PAYYAPPILLIL MOOLA, P.O.PUTHUR, THRISSUR - 680 014.

¶27

3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,PARK HOUSE, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR - 1.

¶28

BY ADVS. A.R.NIMOD SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW M.A.AUGUSTINE(K/000511/2005)

¶29

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.08.2022, ALONG WITH MACA.2793/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

Sathish Ninan, J.

¶31

==============================

¶32

M.A.C.A Nos.2793 of 2015 & 1322 of 2018

¶33

========================== Dated this the 10^th day of August, 2022

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

M.A.C.A No.1322 of 2018 is by the claimant in

¶36

O.P(MV) No.404 of 2005 of the M.A.C.T, Thrissur, seeking enhancement of compensation. M.A.C.A No.2793 of 2015 is

¶37

filed by the Insurance Company challenging its liability.

¶38

For the sake of convenience, M.A.C.A No.1322 of

¶39

2018 by the claimant is being taken up for consideration initially. As per Award dated 30.01.2015, the Tribunal granted a total compensation of D53,156.19 rounded to

¶40

D53,160/- in the manner as hereunder:

¶41

Sl. No.	Head of Claim	Amount claimed (in rupees)	Amount awarded (in rupees)
1	Transport Charges	2,000/-	1,000/-
2	Damage to clothing and articles	1,000/-	500/-
3	Bystander expenses for 3 days	3,000/-	600/-
4	Extra nourishment charges	1,000/-	500/-

¶42

M.A.C.A Nos.2793 of 2015 & 1322 of 2018

¶43

-: 2 :-

¶44

5	Medical bills	5000/-	3639.19
6	Pain and suffering	15,000/-	8,000/-
7	Compensation for loss of earnings for 2 months (3500 x 2)	20,000/-	7,000/-
8	Loss of convenience and enjoyment in life	40000	3,000/-
9	Compensation for disability (3500x12x15x4.59%)		28917
	Total		53156.19

¶45

It is dissatisfied with the above that the claimant has approached this Court.

¶46

The grievance of the claimant is essentially

¶47

regarding the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal. The injured – claimant is a farmer. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income notionally at D3,500/-. The accident was in the year 2005. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (2011 AIR (SC) 2951), and Syed Sadiq v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.(2014(2) SCC 735) , the

¶48

M.A.C.A Nos.2793 of 2015 & 1322 of 2018

¶49

notional income is liable to be fixed at D5,000/- per

¶50

month. When the income is so calculated, the claims under the heads in serial numbers 7 and 9 are to be re-

¶51

fixed. Under the head of compensation for loss of earning for two months, the amount that the claimant is entitled for is D5000 x 2 = 10,000/-, and under the head of compensation for disability, the total amount would be D38,556/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled to a further amount of D3,000/- under the head in serial No.7 and an amount of D9,639/- under the head in serial No.9.

¶52

Thus, the claimant is entitled to further enhanced amount of D12,639/-. The Appeal was filed with a delay of 302 days. This court, as per order dated 01.12.2021, while condoning the delay had ordered that the claimant shall not be entitled for interest for period covered by the delay.

¶53

As regards M.A.C.A No.2793 of 2015, the same is

¶54

filed by the Insurance Company challenging the liability

¶55

M.A.C.A Nos.2793 of 2015 & 1322 of 2018

¶56

fixed on the Company to satisfy the Award. The challenge

¶57

is on the ground that the rider of the motor cycle did not hold a valid driving license at the time of

¶58

accident. This Court had, taking note of Ext B2 communication from the RTO that the rider of the motor cycle, who is the second respondent in O.P(MV), did not have a valid driving license at the time of accident, and also taking note of the fact that the rider failed to produce the licence, as per judgment dated 17.10.2017 allowed the Appeal and absolved the Insurance Company. R.P No.404 of 2022 was filed by the rider claiming that

¶59

he was holding a valid license at the time of the accident. Along with the Review Petition, the rider had filed Annexure A, true copy of Driving Licence, and Annexure B, true copy of Ration Card, to impress upon the Court that he held a valid driving license at the relevant time. In the light thereof, the Review Petition has been allowed by me and the appeal is

¶60

M.A.C.A Nos.2793 of 2015 & 1322 of 2018

¶61

reheard. A perusal of Annexure A shows that the name of the holder is shown as 'Shiju K.A', son of K.A Antony, Kodiyan House, Puthur P.O, Thrissur. In the cause title

¶62

of the Award of the Tribunal, the name of the rider – second respondent is shown as 'Joju', son of Antony, with the same address. In the Review Petition, he contends that he is also known as 'Shiju' and that the records show such name, that he known by both the names

¶63

and that it is one and the same person. As noticed above, but for his name, the name of the father and the address tallies. In the light of the above, I am of the opinion that it is only proper that an opportunity be granted to him to produce relevant documents and adduce evidence before the Tribunal to establish his identity and also that he held a valid driving license at the time of the accident in question.

¶64

Resultantly, the appeals are disposed of as

¶65

hereunder.

¶66

M.A.C.A Nos.2793 of 2015 & 1322 of 2018

¶67

claimant is entitled to a further amount of D12,639/- as compensation, with interest at the rate of 9% from the

¶68

date of petition till realisation, excluding the period of 302 days. The Insurance Company shall satisfy the enhanced award within one month from today. M.A.C.A 2793 of 2015 is allowed. The O.P(MV) is remanded back to the Tribunal solely for the purpose of determining whether

¶69

the second respondent in the O.P(MV) held a valid Driving License at the time of the accident and the consequential liability of Insurance Company.

¶70

Parties to appear before the Tribunal on

¶71

01.09.2022. Since no further adjudication is involved it

¶72

shall not be necessary for the claimant to appear before the tribunal.

¶73

Sd/-

¶74

Sathish Ninan, Judge

¶75

vdv

T.K. Kishore v. Lijo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.K. Kishore v. Lijo

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

M/S.Coastal Engineering, Vs the Union of India

Badarudeen Vs Thankamma Mathunni

Suresh Vs Sanjok Sharma

Francis Kottackal Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs the United India Insurance Company Limited

Francis Kottackal Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs the United India Insurance Company Limited

Francis Kottackal Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs the United India Insurance Company Limited