Partly allowed

Rahim v. the Divisional Manager

Kerala HC10 Jan 2022MACA/1580/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in this motor accident claims appeal, examined the reasonableness of the compensation awarded to the petitioner for injuries sustained in an intersection accident. Finding the Tribunal's award on bystander expenses, extra nourishment, pain, and sufferings inadequate, the Court enhanced the compensation amount.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs.22,600/- with interest and costs of Rs.5,000/-.

Rahim Vs the Divisional Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 20TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

MACA NO. 1580 OF 2012

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 17.11.2011 IN OP(MV)NO.272/2009 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

RAHIM
S/O ABDUL KAREEM,
KANNIMELTHARAYIL, PALLISSERICKAL,
SASTHAMCOTTA

¶9

BY ADV SRI.PRATHEESH.P

¶10

RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶11

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
M/S CHOLAMANDALAM,
GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, CHENNAI.
600001

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.

¶13

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶14

M.A.C.A.No.1580/2012

¶15

-:2:-

¶16

Dated this the 10^th day of January,2022

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

The appellant was the petitioner in O.P (MV) No.272/2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. The respondent in the appeal was the third respondent-insurer before the Tribunal. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶19

The petitioner had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries that he sustained in an accident on 16.08.2008. It was his case that, while he was walking through the Anjilimoodu-Karoorkadavu public road, he was hit by a goods autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-2/Y 9856, driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The autorickshaw was owned by the first respondent and insured with the third respondent.

¶20

M.A.C.A.No.1580/2012

¶21

-:3:-

¶22

The petitioner was aged 36 years at the time of accident. He was a businessman by profession and earning a monthly income of Rs.3,000/-. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the respondents.

¶23

The respondents 1 and 2 did not contest the proceedings and were set ex parte.

¶24

The third respondent had filed a written statement, refuting the allegations in the claim petition. The third respondent contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner. However, the third respondent admitted that the autorickshaw had a valid insurance coverage.

¶25

The petitioner was examined as PW1 and marked Exts. A1 to A10 series in evidence. The

¶26

respondents did not let in any contra evidence.

¶27

The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part, by permitting the petitioner to realise from the

¶28

M.A.C.A.No.1580/2012

¶29

-:4:-

¶30

third respondent an amount of Rs.70,000/- with interest and cost.

¶31

Dissatisfied with the quantum of

¶32

compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners are in appeal.

¶33

Heard; Sri.Pratheesh. P, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and Sri.P. Jacob Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/third respondent-insurer.

¶34

The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just?.

¶35

Negligence and liability

¶36

Ext.A3 chargesheet filed by the police proves that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent. Admittedly, the first respondent was the owner and the third respondent was the insurer of the autorickshaw. The respondents have not let in any evidence to discredit Ext.A3 chargesheet.

¶37

M.A.C.A.No.1580/2012

¶38

-:5:-

¶39

Similarly, the third respondent has also not proved that the first respondent had violated the insurance policy conditions. Therefore, the third respondent is liable to pay compensation amount.

¶40

Bystander expenses and Extra nourishment:

¶41

It is proved that the petitioner was treated as

¶42

an inpatient for a period of 28 days i.e., from 16.08.2008 to 14.09.2008. The Tribunal awarded him an amount of Rs.2,800/- towards ‘bystander expenses’ and Rs.1,000/- towards ‘extra nourishment’. The said amounts are on the lower side.

¶43

Taking note of the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2008, I award the petitioner an amount of Rs.300/- per day, for a period of 28 days towards ‘bystander expenses’, which works out to Rs.8,400/-, i.e., an enhancement of Rs.5,600/-. Similarly, I award him an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards ‘extra nourishment’, as claimed in the claim petition, i.e., an enhancement of Rs.2,000/-.

¶44

M.A.C.A.No.1580/2012

¶45

-:6:-

¶46

Pain and sufferings and loss of amenities:

¶47

Going by the nature of injuries sustained by

¶48

the petitioner i.e., he had a fracture of the fibular head comminuted and multiple crush injuries on his right leg and he was treated as an inpatient for a period of 28 days and was indisposed for a period of four months and also had suffered a functional disability of 4%, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to an enhancement of Rs.10,000/- under the head ‘pain and sufferings’ and Rs.5,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities’.

¶49

With respect to the other heads of compensation, I find that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable and just compensation.

¶50

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.22,600/- (i.e., an enhancement of Rs.5,600/towards ‘bystander expenses’, Rs.2,000/- towards ‘extra nourishment’, Rs.10,000/- towards ‘pain and

¶51

M.A.C.A.No.1580/2012

¶52

-:7:-

¶53

sufferings and Rs.5,000/- towards ‘loss of amenities’) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, after deducting interest for a period of 151 days i.e., the period of delay in preferring this appeal and as ordered by this Court on 28.09.2021 in C.M.Appln.No.1/2012, and a cost of Rs.5,000/-. The respondent/third respondent-insurer is ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest and cost before the Tribunal within sixty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Immediately on the compensation amount being deposited, the Tribunal shall disburse the deposited amount to the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶54

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS,JUDGE

//True copy/

P.A.To Judge

DST/10.01.22

Rahim v. the Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahim v. the Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjusha K.H Vs Balakrishnan

Sunny Vs Liza Antony

Pathumma, W/O.Alavi Vs Somasundaran and 2 Others

Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Raseena

Omana Pavithran Vs P.K.Ibrahim

K.Benny Peter Vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.