Allowed

Sindhu O. v. Mathew Kurian

Kerala HC3 Jun 2022MACA/327/2012

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 recalculated notional income and increased awards for loss of earnings, bystander expenses, transportation, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and permanent disability based on the injuries sustained.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation from Rs.2,26,024 to Rs.4,15,024 including interest at 5% from the date of petition, excluding the delay period.

Sindhu O. Vs Mathew Kurian — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

M.A.C.A.327/2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶6

MACA NO. 327 OF 2012

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 2857/2005 OF II ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , KOZHIKODE

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶9

SINDHU O., W/O.SURENDRAN, AGED 33 YEARS, EDAKKUDI HOUSE, P O , PUTHANCHERY, KOOMULY, ULLIYON, KOZHIKODE

¶10

BY ADV SMT.K.V.RASHMI

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

MATHEW KURIAN, THADATHIL HOUSE P O, THALAYAD, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE-673574

¶13

SALI. V.P., S/O. MOIDEENKOYA, VELLAPALIMEETHAL HOUSE, CHELANNUR, P O, KANNAMKARA, KOZHIKODE 673616

¶14

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE II, G.H.ROAD, KOZHIKODE 673001

¶15

BY ADV SRI.RAJESH THOMAS

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

M.A.C.A.327/2012

¶18

¶19

C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶20

M.A.C.A.No.327 of 2012

¶21

Dated this the 3^rd day of June, 2022

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Under challenge in this appeal is the award dated 08.09.2010 in O.P.(M.V.)No.2857 of 2005 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. Injured was

¶24

the claimant before the Tribunal. She was a computer operator at the relevant time, aged 27 years. Accident occurred on 15.04.2005. Following are the heads under which the appellant/claimant sought for enhancement of

¶25

compensation. The primary ground is with respect to monthly income. As against Rs.6,500/- claimed, Tribunal allowed only Rs.2,500/-. No proof as regards the income was adduced. Therefore, I am bound to reckon the notional income indicated in Ramachandrappa v. Manager,

¶26

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [2011 KHC

¶27

784] at Rs.5,000/-, pertaining to the year 2005.

¶28

M.A.C.A.327/2012

¶29

¶30

The loss of earnings is reckoned for two months. It is admitted that the appellant was treated as an inpatient for 10 days, therefore, it is only reasonable that three months loss of earnings is reckoned.

¶31

The bystander expenses is granted only @Rs.100/for a period of 10 days. The same is liable to be enhanced @Rs.250/- per day. Even going by a modest estimation, the amount granted for extra nourishment,

¶32

Rs.1,000/-, is liable to be enhanced to Rs.2,000/-.

¶33

Towards transportation charges Rs.500/- alone is granted, under which head also, this Court is inclined to grant a further sum of Rs.1,000/-. Under the head, pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- alone is granted by the Tribunal, which is seriously assailed by the appellant taking recourse to paragraph 10 of the impugned order, from where, it is clear that the appellant suffered a crush injury on right hand dorsum and compound fracture 2^nd and 3^rd meta carpel heads, with displaced MCP joint. This Court finds considerable force in the submission

¶34

M.A.C.A.327/2012

¶35

¶36

made by the learned counsel and therefore, inclined to

¶37

grant a further sum of Rs.7500/- towards pain and suffering. Loss of amenities has not been reckoned by the Tribunal. The compensation on account of that head ought to have been reckoned more so when the appellant had suffered 30% disability. This Court is therefore of the opinion that a sum of Rs.15,000/- is liable to be granted under that head. The disability assessed is liable to be recalculated reckoning monthly income at Rs.5,000/-.

¶38

This appeal is allowed and the amount due to the

¶39

appellant towards compensation is as shown below.

¶40

Sl. No.	Head of Claim	Amount awarded by the Tribunal	Total amount enhancement appeal	after in
1	Transport to hospital	500		1,500
2	Extra nourishment	1,000		2,000
3	Loss of earnings	5,000	15,000	(5000x3)
4	Bystander's expenses	1,000	2,500	(250x10)

¶41

M.A.C.A.327/2012

¶42

¶43

5	Treatment expenses	55,524	55,524
6	Pain and suffering	10,000	17,500
7	Permanent disability	1,53,000	3,06,000 (5000x12x17x30/100)
8	Loss of Amenities	Nil	15,000
	Total	2,26,024	4,15,024

¶44

Amount enhanced = Rs.4,15,024/ – Rs.2,26,024/ = Rs.1,89,000/

¶45

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 amount, at the rate of 5% from the date of petition. If any amounts have already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. Since there was a delay of 394 days in filing the appeal, the interest for the enhanced quantum shall not run for the said period as directed in order dated 27.02.2012 in C.M.A.No.427/2012 in this appeal. The claimant shall produce the details of the Bank account

¶46

M.A.C.A.327/2012

¶47

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 on the enhanced amount after the period stipulated by this Court. However, if the Insurance Company fails to deposit the amount, as

¶48

directed, interest on the enhanced amount shall also run at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of petition.

¶49

The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

Sd/-

C.JAYACHANDRAN

JUDGE

Sbna/

Sindhu O. v. Mathew Kurian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sindhu O. v. Mathew Kurian

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

Kannan, S/O.Ganapathi, C.NO.808/15, Central Prison & Correctional Home, Kannur Vs State of Kerala

Chandran Vs Ancilly Devassikutty

S. Sunil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sudheesh Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Balan Vs Shimjith

Laila and Others Vs Sanoj Koshy Varghese & Others