Allowed

Prasanthan, v. Robert Missier & Others

Kerala HC26 Oct 2022MACA/2346/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The court enhanced compensation from Rs.35,750 to Rs.58,250 for loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and other heads due to inadequate quantification by the Tribunal, ordering the insurer to deposit the additional sum with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.58,250/- plus interest to be deposited by the 3rd respondent insurer within two months.

Prasanthan, Vs Robert Missier & Others — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 2346 OF 2009

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 23.07.2007 IN OP(MV)NO. 611/2003 OF ADDITIONAL
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN O.P.(MV)NO.611/2003:

¶8

1 PRASANTHAN,[DIED] S/O VIDHYADHARAN, RANDUTHAIVELIYIL, PARAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA.

¶9

SUPPLEMENTAL APPELLANTS 2 TO 5 IMPLEADED

¶10

ADDL.P2SUDHARMA.S, W/O LATE PRASANTHAN,
AGED 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT RANDUTHAIVELIYIL, PARAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA - 688 004.
ADDL.P3PRAMOD.P.,S/O. LATE PRASANTHAN,
AGED 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT RANDUTHAIVELIYIL, PARAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA - 688 004.
ADDL.P4PRAMITHA.P, D/O. LATE PRASANTHAN,
AGED 19 YEARS,
RESIDING AT RANDUTHAIVELIYIL, PARAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA - 688 004.
ADDL.P5PONNAMMA.G,M/O. LATE PRASANTHAN,
AGED 80 YEARS,
RESIDING AT RANDUTHAIVELIYIL, PARAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA - 688 004.

¶11

ARE IMPLEADED AS SUPPLEMENTAL APPELLANTS IN VIEW OF THE
DEATH OF THE ORIGINAL APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 11/3/22
IN I.A. 1/21 IN MACA 2346/2009.
BY ADVS. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ

¶12

 SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY
 SMT.SAYUJYA

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.P.(MV) NO.611/2003:

¶14

1 ROBERT MISSIER NO.104, BOOPALRAYER PURAM, 2ND STREET, TUTUCORIN.

¶15

2 K.ARULRAJ, S/O.KARUPPUSWAMY, 216/2, AYYERVILLAI STREET, DUSNEWIS NAGAR, AROGYAPURAM, TUTUCORIN FROM 23 B, NAMBIKKAIROOHVILLAI STREET, TUTUCORIN, TAMILNADU.

¶16

¶17

M.A.C.A.No.2346 of 2009

¶18

3 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, ALAPPUZHA.

¶19

R3 BY ADV SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN THIRUVALLA

¶20

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
26.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

M.A.C.A.No.2346 of 2009

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Dated this the 26th day of October, 2022

¶25

This appeal is originated from an award passed by Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on 23.07.2007 in O.P.(MV) No.611/2003. The appellant is the petitioner before the Tribunal in the above Original Petition. Based on the evidence adduced by the petitioner the Tribunal arrived at a sum of Rs.35,750/- as the compensation payable and directed the 3^rd respondent to deposit the same with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Petition till the date of realisation within two months from the date of passing of the award. Aggrieved by the quantum stands awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner before the Tribunal has approached this Court in the appeal on hand seeking for enhancement.

¶26

The facts which led to the filing of the Original Petition seeking compensation being relevant, are discussed in brief hereunder:

¶27

M.A.C.A.No.2346 of 2009

¶28

¶29

The petitioner was riding a bicycle along N.H.47 on 22.05.2003 and at about 6.30 a.m. a Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.TN 69/D 6687 passing through the said road knocked him down at Punnapra. He sustained serious injuries and was rushed to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam for treatment. He had treatment there as inpatient for 20 days and the treatment was continued as outpatient till 24.07.2003. Alleging that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo by its driver, and seeking for a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- as compensation, the above Original Petition was filed before the Tribunal.

¶30

The owner, driver and insurer of the Tata Sumo were arrayed as respondents 1 to 3 in the Original Petition. 1^st and 2^nd respondents due to their non-appearance despite receipt of notice from the Tribunal were declared ex-parte. The 3^rd respondent had filed written statement admitting policy for the Tata Sumo bearing Registration No. TN 69/D 6687 but, denying negligence on the part of the driver of the Tata Sumo. Negligence was alleged on the part of the rider of the bicycle. Compensation claimed is also disputed for it’s exorbitance.

¶31

¶32

M.A.C.A.No.2346 of 2009

¶33

Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the petitioner and Ext.B1, on the side of the 3^rd respondent. The petition moved under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the M.V.Act’) was also allowed and thereby permission was granted to the 3^rd respondent to contest the Original Petition by recourse to all available statuatory defences.

¶34

On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the 2^nd respondent, the driver of the Tata Sumo was responsible for causing the accident by his rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal has also found that the petitioner on account of the injuries sustained in the motor accident is entitled to get compensation. Rs.35,750/- was arrived at as compensation payable and the 3^rd respondent was directed to deposit the same with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Petition till the date of realisation.

¶35

Sri.N.Raghuraj, the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the monthly income for the

¶36

¶37

M.A.C.A.No.2346 of 2009

¶38

purpose of assessment of compensation for loss of earning was fixed by the Tribunal as Rs.1,500/-. According to him, the fixation of monthly income as above is on the lower side. He canvassed for a re-fixation on the basis of the notional fixation in the case of a coolie worker in Ramachandrappa V. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236]. Rs.1,500/- stands fixed as monthly income being too low, this Court feels it appropriate to re-fix it as Rs.4,000/-. The Tribunal had taken three months’ period for assessment of compensation for loss of earning which according to the learned counsel is inadequate. It is noticed that the petitioner had sustained undisplaced fracture of Right Iliac Blade and comminuted fracture of acetabulum with displacement of fragments and femoral head. Disruption of pubic symphysis was also diagnosed. Eventhough the petitioner is established to have sustained grave injuries, three months’ period alone was considered by the Tribunal for assessment of compensation for loss of earnings. This Court finds in the context on hand to consider four months as the period for which he was prevented from attending his job and earning income in view of the

¶39

M.A.C.A.No.2346 of 2009

¶40

¶41

injuries sustained by him. Rs.16,000/- (Rs.4000x 4 months) is arrived at in the above manner of calculation as compensation towards loss of earnings. Rs.250/- stands awarded by the Tribunal towards Damages to Clothing being low, this Court is inclined to enhance it to Rs.1000/-. Eventhough the Tribunal had taken note of the serious injuries sustained by the petitioner, it failed to award just and reasonable compensation under the heads pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyments in life. The award of the sums under those heads respectively being Rs.18,000/- and Rs.8,000/-, this Court is inclined to modify and enhance it to Rs.40,000/- and Rs.30,000/-. Since the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence to establish that he had suffered disability on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the Tribunal is justified in declining to award compensation under that head. Rs.1000/stands awarded each under the heads Transportation and extra nourishment, being inadequate, this Court enhances it to Rs.2,000/- each so that the petitioner will get Rs.1000/- each as additional compensation under those heads.

¶42

¶43

M.A.C.A.No.2346 of 2009

¶44

The petitioner died during the pendency of this

¶45

appeal and therefore, his legal heirs were brought on record in the appeal on hand as supplemental appellants 2 to 5.

¶46

In the re-fixation of compensation as above additional appellants would get Rs.11,500/- as compensation under the head loss of earnings, Rs.1000/-, each under the head transportation expenses and extra nourishment, Rs.750/under the head damages to clothing, Rs.22,000/- each under the head pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyments in life. Therefore, Rs.58,250/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty only) will be payable as additional compensation to the additional appellants. The 3^rd respondent being the insurer shall deposit the aforesaid sum with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Petition till the date of realisation. The appeal having been filed with a delay of 54 days, the 3^rd respondent is exonerated from liability to pay interest fixed for the sum, for the said period as directed in the order passed by this Court on 12.10.2021 in C.M.Application No.2/2009. The amount arrived at as additional compensation with interest

¶47

¶48

M.A.C.A.No.2346 of 2009

¶49

fixed on it and the original amount stands awarded by the impugned award with interest fixed on it (if not already paid) shall be paid by the 3^rd respondent in favour of the additional

¶50

appellants within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶51

MACA stands allowed accordingly.

¶52

Sd/- MARY JOSEPH

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

MJL

Prasanthan, v. Robert Missier & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanthan, v. Robert Missier & Others

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

Shakkeer Vs Biju, S/O.Balan, Kainatty, Kozhikkode

Vapputty @ Bapputty Vs Ramadas

Ambika and Others Vs C.Manikandan and Another

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Leela

Arattuthodika Moideen Vs the National Insurance Co.Ltd.

Mathew Thomas Vs the Managing Director, Ksrtc