Allowed

Sudheesh v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Kerala HC3 Jun 2022MACA/1442/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident claims appeal allowed. The High Court enhanced compensation by adopting a higher notional income of Rs.9,000, extending the loss of earnings period to 7 months, and granting additional amounts for loss of amenities and recalculating bystander expenses at Rs.300 per day.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.4,42,800 to Rs.7,31,880; interest on enhanced amount at 5% from date of petition; payment directed within one month.

Sudheesh Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

M.A.C.A.1442/2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

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

¶7

MACA NO. 1442 OF 2018

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 969/2013 OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD / II ADDITIONAL MACT, PALAKKAD

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶10

SUDHEESH, AGED 31 YEARS

¶11

S/O.BABY, RESIDING AT VARIKKANKUZHY HOUSE, POOTHANCODE, OLINKADAVU POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV SRI.BABY MATHEW

¶13

RESPONDENT/3rd RESPONDENT:

¶14

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

¶15

2ND FLOOR, KABEER PLAZA, Y M C A ROAD, ALAPUZHA-688011.

¶16

ADV.GEORGE CHERIAN

¶17

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

¶18

M.A.C.A.1442/2018

¶19

¶20

C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶21

M.A.C.A.No.1442 of 2018

¶22

Dated this the 3^rd day of June, 2022

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

In this appeal, the appellant/claimant assails

¶25

the award of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims

¶26

Tribunal, Palakkad dated 07.11.2017 in O.P.(M.V.)No.969 of 2013. Petitioner/appellant is the injured and the accident occurred on 24.03.2013.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the

¶29

impugned award on the following grounds. Firstly, the

¶30

notional income taken by the Tribunal was only

¶31

Rs.5,000/-. Petitioner is a driver by profession.

¶32

However, no proof with respect to income was adduced.

¶33

Therefore the notional income in terms of Ramachandrappa

¶34

v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company

¶35

Ltd. [2011 KHC 784] is liable to be taken, is the

¶36

M.A.C.A.1442/2018

¶37

¶38

submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. This

¶39

Court finds force in the said submission and the notional income is therefore reckoned at Rs.9,000/- as indicated in Ramachandrappa's case (supra) .

¶40

The second ground is the period during which the loss of earnings has been reckoned. Learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner was an inpatient for 22 days spreading from March to May 2013. He had

¶41

substantial injuries as taken note of in paragraph 10 of the impugned award. Besides head injury, he suffered a fracture on sinus-anterior wall, fracture on nasal bone and fracture on post wall of frontal sinus. It is also on record that, petitioner was initially treated in the Little Flower Hospital, Angamali and then at the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur and thereafter in Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur. According to learned

¶42

counsel, loss of earnings is liable to be reckoned for a period of 9 months. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, as also the fact that he was an inpatient for 22 days, this Court is of the opinion that

¶43

M.A.C.A.1442/2018

¶44

¶45

a period of 7 months would be a reasonable period to reckon loss of earnings.

¶46

Under the head loss of amenities, although

¶47

Rs.30,000/- was claimed, no amount was awarded by the Tribunal. Again, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and the number of days of inpatient treatment, coupled with the fact that victim had 28% permanent disability, a sum of Rs.15,000/- would be reasonable under the head of loss of amenities and the same is granted.

¶48

The next head is the bystander expenses, under

¶49

which head, Rs.4,000/- alone was granted for a period of 22 days. According to learned counsel, a sum of Rs.300/-

¶50

per day is liable to be reckoned. This claim of the appellant is liable to be reckoned, since the accident occurred in 2013. Compensation under that head is to be reworked, reckoning the amount @300/- per day.

¶51

In the result, this appeal is allowed and the

¶52

compensation payable to the appellant/claimant will be as indicated here below.

¶53

M.A.C.A.1442/2018

¶54

¶55

Sl.	Head of Claim	Amount	Total amoun	t after
No.		awarded by the Tribunal	enhancement appeal	in
1	Loss of earnings	20000	63,000/-	(9000x7)
2	Partial loss of earnings	nil		Nil
3	Transportation to hospital and back	3000		3000
4	Damage to clothing	1000		1000
5	Extra nourishment	3000		3000
6	Medical expenses	91200		91200
7	Future medical expenses	Nil		Nil
8	Expenses of a bystander	4000	6,600	(300x22)
9	Compensation for pain and suffering etc	35000		35000
10	Compensation for continuing or permanent disability compensation for loss of earning power	285600 (5000x17x12 x28/100)	(9000x17x12	5,14,080 x28/100)
11	Compensation for loss of amenities in life	Nil		15000
	Total	4,42,800		7,31,880

¶56

M.A.C.A.1442/2018

¶57

¶58

Amount enhanced = Rs.7,31,880/ – Rs.4,42,800/ = Rs.2,89,080/

¶59

The Insurance Company shall pay interest for the amounts awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award and for the enhanced amount, at the rate of 5% from the date of petition. If any amounts have already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. The claimant shall produce the details of the Bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and amount shall be transferred to the Bank account directly through NEFT/RTGS mode, within a period of one month thereafter. If the Bank account is not given within the time stipulated, it is made clear that, no interest shall run on the enhanced amount after the

¶60

period stipulated by this Court. However, if the Insurance Company fails to deposit the amount, as directed, interest on the enhanced amount shall also run

¶61

at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of

M.A.C.A.1442/2018

petition.

The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

C.JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶68

Sbna/

Sudheesh v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudheesh v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

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

Kannan, S/O.Ganapathi, C.NO.808/15, Central Prison & Correctional Home, Kannur Vs State of Kerala

Chandran Vs Ancilly Devassikutty

S. Sunil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sindhu O. Vs Mathew Kurian

Balan Vs Shimjith

Laila and Others Vs Sanoj Koshy Varghese & Others