Allowed

Nithin v. Viju.G.Nair

Kerala HC15 Jun 2022MACA/2993/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident appeal, the High Court enhanced compensation awarded to a minor appellant. The court accepted a 30% permanent disability figure per Karunakaran. It increased permanent disability compensation, adjusted loss of amenities, corrected bystander expenses, and set aside duplicate future earning awards.

What did the court decide?

Appellant awarded enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,22,200 with 8% interest from the date of petition, subject to bank account submission conditions.

Nithin Vs Viju.G.Nair — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 25TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 2993 OF 2017

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 474/2006 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

APPELLANT/S:

¶8

NITHIN AGED 23 YEARS S/O.C.RAMACHANDRAN, TC 20/2391, KALPALAYAM, KARAMANA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP J.ROBINSON

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 VIJU.G.NAIR TC 9/2725,PANAYIL VEEDU, SASTHAMANGALAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010.

¶12

2 THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, SOUNDARYA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

BY ADV SRI.E.M.JOSEPH

¶14

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶15

15.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

MACA NO. 2993 OF 2017

¶17

-2-

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

A minor aged 11 years has filed the claim petition, namely O.P (MV) No.474/2006 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained

¶20

by him in a motor accident before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded in the said O.P, the appellant has filed this appeal.

¶21

On 14.11.2005 while the appellant was walking through Karamana Kaimanom NH road and when he reached the Police Station at Karamana at about 7 pm, a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KL 01-AG-748 which was coming in a rash and negligent manner with high speed from the opposite direction hit the appellant and

¶22

as a result of the same, he fell down and sustained serious injuries.

¶23

The respondents remained exparte.

¶24

The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.

¶25

MACA NO. 2993 OF 2017

¶26

-3-

¶27

1,70,000/- with 9% interest from 16.03.2006 till reaslisation from respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally.

¶28

The main ground raised by the counsel for the appellant

¶29

in this appeal is that though the Medical Board assessed 30% as permanent disability as per Ext.A8, the Doctor who issued the same was not examined and so converting the same into whole body disability, 12% was taken. Ext.A8 is issued by the Medical Board. So, a certificate issued by a Medical Board need not be proved by examining the Doctor. This has been held in the decision reported in Karunakaran @ Kannan v. Abdul Rasheed and Others (2015

¶30

(5) KHC 355). Hence, I take the permanent disability at 30%.

¶31

The annual income was taken as Rs.30,000/-. This Court

¶32

in National Insurance Co. Ltd & Others v. K.K Assainar and Others (2019 (4) KLT 39) has discussed the manner in which the compensation payable for loss of dependency in cases involving death of children. Though in the said case the minor has died. In

¶33

MACA NO. 2993 OF 2017

¶34

-4-

¶35

the present case, the minor has only sustained injuries but I am inclined to accept the dictum laid down in the said judgment. In the said judgment, this Court, relying on Schedule 2, has come to the conclusion that for a minor who met with an accident in the year 2005, the income to be taken as Rs.43,000/- per annum. Taking the income as Rs.43,000/-, the amount of compensation for permanent disability would be Rs.43,000 x 15 x 30/100=Rs.1,93,500/-. But the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for loss of future earning power. Since already compensation for permanent disability is awarded, the compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the head compensation for loss of future earning power cannot be awarded and hence the same has to be set aside.

¶36

As far as the loss of amenities in life is concerned, the Tribunal has only awarded Rs.18,000/-. The person having 30% disability, that too for the injury of his eye, necessarily will lose some of the amenities in life. Hence, I am inclined to enhance the

¶37

MACA NO. 2993 OF 2017

¶38

-5-

¶39

amount of compensation for loss of amenities in life from Rs.18,000/- to Rs.50,000/-, which means an enhancement of Rs.32,000/-. The appellant had incurred bystander expenses for seven days. The Tribunal awarded bystander expenses at the rate of Rs.100 per day for seven days. But, taking into note the expenses in the year 2005, I am inclined to take the bystander expense as Rs.200/- per day, which would come into Rs.200 x 7=Rs.1400/-.

¶40

Accordingly, the following enhancements are made to the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶41

Sl No.	Head of Claim	Amt. awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	Amt. enhanced in appeal(Rs.)
1	Compensation for permanent disability	54,000/-	1,93,500/-
2.	Loss of future earning power	50,000/-	-
3.	Loss of amenities	18,000/-	50,000/-
4.	Bystander expenses	700/-	1400/-
	Total	1,22,700/-	2,44,900
	Amount enhanced	2,44,900-1,22,700=Rs.1,22	,200/-

¶42

MACA NO. 2993 OF 2017

¶43

-6-

¶44

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,22,200/- (Rupees One lakh twenty two thousand and two hundred only) with 8% of interest from the date of petition till realisation. 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 amounts at the rate of 8% from the date of the petition. S ince, there was a delay of 390 days in filing the appeal. This Court by order dated 22.09.2017 has put on a condition that in case, any enhancement is granted in the appeal, the said amount will not carry interest for the period in which the delay is condoned. Hence, the appellant will not be entitled to the interest for a period of 390 days on the enhanced compensation awarded by this Court. 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 one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and the amount shall be

¶45

MACA NO. 2993 OF 2017

¶46

-7-

¶47

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 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

¶48

at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of petition.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

BASANT BALAJI JUDGE

¶51

Nithin v. Viju.G.Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nithin v. Viju.G.Nair

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

Rani S., Vs Arun Muraleedhar

Noufal K.P Vs Rufsana Thesnim C

S.Vellinkiri Vs P.Karthika

Mohammed Riyas (Minor) Vs Abubakkar

Kunjamma Vs Mili Jenis

Benny John Vs Georgekutty