Allowed

Sathyan v. Jyothi Kumar

Kerala HC20 Jul 2022MACA/267/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the Motor Accident Claims Appeal. It enhanced the petitioner's monthly notional income to Rs. 4,500, modified the disability percentage to 12% instead of 9%, and awarded Rs. 15,000 for loss of amenities, raising the total compensation to Rs. 2,16,715.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,16,715; interest on enhanced amount at 5% from date of petition payable by Insurance Company.

Sathyan Vs Jyothi Kumar — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

M.A.C.A.267/2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶7

MACA NO. 267 OF 2013

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTOPMV 1522/2004 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR EC ACT CASES & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,TSR

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶10

SATHYAN, S/O.RAMAN, R/A.NANDIKARA HOUSE, ATTUMANA DESOM, CHERPU, THRISSUR DIST

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 JYOTHI KUMAR, R/A.'JYOTHIS',VAIKKARA ROAD, NADAVARAMBA POST, THRISSUR DIST, PIN-680661

¶14

2 SIVA KUMAR A,S/O.PRABHAKARAN, R/A.'JYOTHIS',AMARIPADATHU HOUSE, NADAVARAMBU, VELLUKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DIST, PIN-680661,

¶15

3 UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, DIVISINAL OFFICE,PARK HOUSE, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR-680001

¶16

BY ADV SMT.P.A.REZIYA

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

M.A.C.A.267/2013

¶19

¶20

C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶21

M.A.C.A.267 of 2013

¶22

Dated this the 20^th day of July, 2022

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

1. The injured in an accident which took place on 27.02.2004, who was the claimant in O.P(C).No.1522 of

¶25

2004, is the appellant herein. He impugns the award dated

¶26

31.05.2011 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

¶27

Thrissur, especially with respect to the quantum of

¶28

compensation granted under various heads.

¶29

2. Heard Sri.T.C.Suresh Menon, learned counsel for

¶30

the appellant and Sri.P.A.Reziya, learned counsel for the

¶31

third respondent/insurance company. Perused the records.

¶32

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

¶33

the petitioner was engaged in selling fish at the time of accident and he was earning an income of Rs.6,000/- per

¶34

M.A.C.A.267/2013

¶35

¶36

month, whereas, the Tribunal has reckoned only Rs.2,500/towards monthly income. It is true that, no document in proof of income was produced before the Tribunal. However, going by the authoritative pronouncement in

¶37

Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance

¶38

Insurance Company Ltd. [2011 KHC 4675], the notional income fixed for the year 2004 is Rs.4,500/-. Therefore, this Court is inclined to take Rs.4,500/- as the monthly notional income.

¶39

4. The second contention is with respect to the

¶40

disability found by the Tribunal. As per Ext.A7

¶41

certificate issued by the Assistant Professor attached to the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur, 15% disability

¶42

has been certified. However, the Tribunal took only 9%.

¶43

According to the learned counsel, the disability indicated in Ext.A7 is liable to be taken. This contention is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company. Neither the doctor who issued

¶44

¶45

M.A.C.A.267/2013

¶46

Ext.A7, nor the petitioner/appellant mounted the box is the argument. Learned counsel also pointed out that the

¶47

doctor who issued Ext.A7 had not treated the

¶48

petitioner/appellant and that he had relied only upon Ext.A9 x-ray to arrive at a finding with respect to the disability.

¶49

5. Having heard learned counsel appearing on both sides, this Court is of the view that the disability certified by a Government Doctor attached to the Medical

¶50

College Hospital need not be doubted for want of examination before the Court. That apart, this Court finds that, Ext.A7 is an exhaustive certificate, taking into account all parameters, including clinical and

¶51

radiological aspects, to arrive at a finding that the whole body disability is 15%. The contention that he had not treated the appellant/petitioner cannot be sustained.

¶52

There is no such mandate in law. Per contra, learned

¶53

counsel for the appellant pointed out that, as per

¶54

¶55

M.A.C.A.267/2013

¶56

Government Order dated 15.05.1997, there is a clear mandate to the effect that the doctor who treated the patient should not issue a disability certificate, in order to ensure neutrality. Having regard to the attendant facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that, it would be reasonable to take the disability as 12%, instead of 9% reckoned by the Tribunal.

¶57

6. The third contention is with respect to the compensation towards loss of amenities, which was not reckoned at all by the Tribunal. As indicated in Ext.A9, this is a case where the petitioner/appellant suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 15%, which, this court reckoned at 12% as found above. Needless to say that the petitioner is entitled to loss of amenities. Ext.A7 would indicate that the petitioner/appellant had temporary disability for a period of eight months. In the circumstance, this Court estimates compensation on account of loss of amenities at Rs.15,000/-.

¶58

M.A.C.A.267/2013

¶59

¶60

7. Resultantly, M.A.C.A is allowed. The amount of compensation payable to the petitioner/appellant is reworked as indicated in the tabular statement shown below.

¶61

Sl. No.	Head of Claim	Amount awarded by the Tribunal	Total amount after enhancement in appeal
1	Loss of earning	15,000	27,000 [4500x6]
2	Transportation	2,000	2,000
3	Extra Nourishment	3,000	3,000
4	Bystander Expenses	4,000	4,000
5	Treatment Expenses	25,055	25,055
6	Damage to clothing	500	500
7	Pain and Suffering	30,000	30,000
8	Disability	45,900	1,10,160 [4500x12x17x12/100]
9	Loss of Earning Power	-	-
10	Loss of Amenities	-	15,000

¶62

M.A.C.A.267/2013

¶63

¶64

Total 1,25,455 2,16,715

¶65

Amount enhanced = Rs.2,16,715/ – Rs.1,25,455/ = Rs.91,260/

¶66

8 . The Insurance Company shall pay interest for the

¶67

amount awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award; and for the enhanced amount, at the

¶68

rate of 5% from the date of petition. If any amount has already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. Since there was a delay of 490 days in filing the appeal, the interest for the enhanced quantum shall not run for the said period as directed in the order dated 19.01.2022 in C.M.A.No.1/2013. 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

¶69

M.A.C.A.267/2013

¶70

on the enhanced amount after the 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 at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of petition.

¶71

The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

¶72

Sd/-

¶73

C.JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶74

Sbna/

Sathyan v. Jyothi Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathyan v. Jyothi Kumar

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

Jaleel Hussain Vs Kottayam Muncipality

Satheesh Kumar S. Vs the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Santhosh P.G. Vs the Tahsildar, Ranni

C.P.Thomas Vs Murugan

P.v.Mathew Vs Koona Sudhakar

Shahidha Vs Mani.P