Allowed

Shamzudeen v. Sajeev.P.

Kerala HC2 Nov 2022MACA/1510/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the motor accident claims appeal and enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Court fixed the monthly income at Rs.7,000/-, extended the loss of earning period to 4 months, and increased awards for incidental and consequential damages, providing an additional Rs.36,600/- with interest.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.36,600/- with interest at 7.5% per annum was awarded, and the 3rd respondent was ordered to deposit the awarded sum within two months.

Shamzudeen Vs Sajeev.P. — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY,THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 11TH KARTHIKA,1944

¶4

MACA NO. 1510 OF 2013

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 54/2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM DATED 27/03/2013

¶6

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶7

SHAMZUDEEN, AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O MUHAMMED PUTHIYA VEETTIL HOUSE, TRITHALA POST
(VIA)PATTAMBI, NOW RESIDING AT KANNANNUR, POST
NHANGATTIR, OTTAPALAM TALUK
BY ADV SRI.R.SREEHARI

¶8

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1SAJEEV.P.
S/O SASIDHARAN C.P, THAYYILVALAPPIL HOUSE,
EDAPPAL POST, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679
576

¶10

*2I.C SHAJIL
S/O CHANDRAN, VIII/281,
IRUDUKAVIL HOUSE, SUKAPURAM POST, EDAPAL,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 576
(*DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE
APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 30/05/22 IN I.A.
No.1/21 IN MACA No.1510/13)
3UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD
BRANCH OFFICE, WESTERN WING, AMBADI BUILDINGS,
PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 577
BY ADV SRI.M.HARISHARMA

¶11

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MACA No.1510 of 2013

-:2:-

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 2^nd day of November, 2022

¶16

This appeal is directed against an award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam (for short ‘Tribunal’) on 27.03.2013 in OP(MV) No.54/2010. Petitioner had filed the Original Petition before the Tribunal seeking for a total sum of Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. The Tribunal awarded Rs.25,600/- as compensation to the petitioner and permitted him to realise interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Petition till the date of realisation. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the appeal on hand is filed seeking for enhancement of compensation. The parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 in accordance with their status before the Tribunal.

¶17

Petitioner allegedly was travelling in a bus bearing registration No.KL-54 4626 and the injuries were caused when it

¶18

MACA No.1510 of 2013

¶19

-:3:-

¶20

dashed another bus. The driver of the bus bearing registration No.KL-54 4626 was alleged as responsible for the accident by his rash and negligent driving. Petitioner was taken to Nadakavil Hospital, Valachery and was treated there for a single day. A sum of Rs.1,25,000/- was claimed as compensation. The driver, owner and insurer of the bus bearing registration No.KL-54 4626 were arrayed as respondents 1 to 3 in the Original Petition seeking compensation. The 1^st and 2^nd respondents though served with notice, failed to contest the Original Petition and therefore set ex parte.

¶21

The 3^rd respondent had filed written statement admitting insurance coverage for the bus bearing registration No.KL-54 4626 as on date of accident. It was also contended by the 3^rd respondent that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No.KL-08 AK 6199, by it’s driver. The sum claimed as compensation is also disputed being exorbitant.

¶22

Exts.A1 to A7 were marked in evidence on the side of the petitioner and Ext.B1, on the side of the 3^rd respondent. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that

¶23

MACA No.1510 of 2013

¶24

-:4:-

¶25

the petitioner is entitled to get compensation from the respondents and arrived at Rs.25,600/- as the compensation payable. Interest at the rate of 9% per annum was also ordered.

¶26

It is contended by Sri.R.Sreehari, the learned counsel that the petitioner claimed to be an Upholstery worker earning Rs.7,500/- monthly. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income as Rs.3,000/- on a notional basis and the compensation was calculated. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal ought to have relied on Ramachandrappa vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and fixed the monthly income notionally on a proportionate basis. The learned counsel canvassed for adopting Rs.7,000/- as the monthly income. It is further contended by the learned counsel that compensation for loss of earning was arrived at by taking only two months period. According to the learned counsel the petitioner has sustained fracture on rib and other injuries on various parts of the body and he must have been restrained from attending the job for a period more than the period considered by the Tribunal. According to the learned counsel, under the heads, bystander expenses, extra nourishment, damages to clothing, pain and

¶27

MACA No.1510 of 2013

¶28

-:5:-

¶29

suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyments in life also the Tribunal has awarded only meagre sums and compensation needs to be enhanced to make those just and reasonable.

¶30

The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent has contended that the compensation awarded being just and reasonable, interference is totally unwarranted. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner failed to adduce evidence to establish his job and monthly income and therefore, the Tribunal was constrained to adopt Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income on a notional basis and is justified in doing so.

¶31

In Ramachandrappa (supra), the Apex Court has fixed the monthly income of a Coolie worker who had met with a motor accident in the year 2004 as Rs.4,500/- on a notional basis. The accident in the case on hand being occurred in the year 2009, this Court finds it appropriate to refix the monthly income as Rs.7,000/- on a proportionate basis. As already stated, the petitioner has sustained fracture of rib, lacerated wound and contusions on various parts of his body. Two months’ period taken by the Tribunal for assessment of compensation under the head loss of earning is inadequate and this Court is inclined to

¶32

MACA No.1510 of 2013

¶33

-:6:-

¶34

take 4 months’ period. When compensation for loss of earning is re-assessed on the basis of the monthly income refixed as Rs.7,000/- and the period as 4 months, Rs.28,000/- is arrived at. Rs.6,000/- stands awarded under that head when adjusted, the petitioner will get Rs.22,000/- as additional compensation.

¶35

Under the heads bystander expenses, extra nourishment and damages to clothing, the Tribunal had awarded only Rs.200/-, Rs.200/- and Rs.500/- respectively. Those being inadequate, this Court is inclined to enhance the same to Rs.2,000/-, Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively so that the petitioner will get Rs.1,800/-, Rs.1,300/- and Rs.500/- as additional compensation under those heads. Under the heads pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyments in life, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.10,000/- and Rs.4,000/respectively. This Court finds it reasonable to enhance it to Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- and therefore, the petitioner will get Rs.5,000/- and Rs.6,000/- respectively as additional compensation under those heads.

¶36

In the reassessment as above, the petitioner will get Rs.36,600/- (Rupees Thirtysix thousand and six hundred only) as

¶37

-:7:-

¶38

MACA No.1510 of 2013

¶39

additional compensation which would carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Petition till realisation. The 3^rd respondent shall deposit the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal by the impugned award (if not paid) and the additional compensation now arrived at with interest fixed as above, within a period of two months from the

¶40

date on which a certified copy of this judgment is received.

¶41

M.A.C.A stands allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH

JUDGE

ttb

Shamzudeen v. Sajeev.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamzudeen v. Sajeev.P.

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

Sudha Valsakumar Vs Babu

N.Padmaleela Vs Sharmila R Nair

U.v.Sasikumar Vs Geethamani and Others

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Abubakkar

Arun Prakash Vs Charles Makinson Sanders Boston, Mannach

Leelakutty A.T. Vs Managing Director