Allowed

Jareesha Latheef v. Muhammad Jalaludheen

Kerala HC17 Oct 2022MACA/347/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the petitioner in a motor accident case. The court reassessed loss of earnings, disability payments, and other heads of claim, ordering the insurer to deposit additional sums with interest exonerated for filing delay.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 2,03,092 with interest at 7.5% per annum to be deposited by the insurer, interest exonerated for 81 days due to delay in preference.

Jareesha Latheef Vs Muhammad Jalaludheen — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 25TH ASWINA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 347 OF 2014

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 20.05.2013 IN O.P(M.V) NO.801/2012 OF
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

JAREESHA LATHEEF,
D/O.ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SULFATH HOUSE, (PO) WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE

¶9

BY ADV SRI.A.V.M.SALAHUDDEENIN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 MUHAMMAD JALALUDHEEN

¶12

S/O.MUHAMMEDALI, AGE NOT KNOWN

¶13

RESIDING AT 13/1169, SOOFI MANZIL,(PO) KUTTICHIRA,
KOZHIKODE 673 001

¶14

2 RIYAS S,

¶15

S/O.AHAMMEDKOYA,RESIDING AT SULFATH HOUSE,
(PO) WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE 673 005

¶16

3 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NOOR COMPLEX, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE 673 001

¶17

R3 BY SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR, SC

¶18

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶19

M.A.C.A.No.347 of 2014

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Dated this the 17th day of October, 2022

¶23

This appeal is directed against an award passed by Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode (for short 'the Tribunal') on 20.05.2013 in O.P(M.V.) No.801/2012. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner and the respondents in accordance with their status in the above Original Petition.

¶24

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,42,500/- as compensation in favour of the petitioner and directed the 3^rd respondent to indemnify the insured by depositing it with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court in the appeal on hand alleging that the Tribunal failed to award just and reasonable compensation under various heads of her claim.

¶25

The motor accident in the case on hand was occurred at about 3.30 pm on 22.09.2011. The Maruti car in which the

¶26

M.A.C.A.No.347 of 2014

¶27

¶28

petitioner was travelling through Link road Kozhikode hit firstly on a pedestrian and then on the police aid post. The petitioner in view of the serious injuries sustained in the impact, was transported to Baby Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode. Her left femur was fractured and a lacerated wound was inflicted on the left side of the forehead. She underwent surgery twice for nailing and for removal of implants. A sum of Rs.94,971/- was established as expended for treatment. She had produced Ext.A6, the pay slip issued by her employer which shows that she was not paid any amount during medical leave availed by her following the accident. A certificate issued by a Medical Practitioner assessing her permanent disability as 22% is also produced and marked in evidence as Ext.A3.

¶29

The Tribunal arrived at a finding on the basis of the evidence adduced that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti car by its driver, who was arrayed as the 2^nd respondent in the Original Petition. The Tribunal has also arrived at Rs.1,42,500/- as the total compensation payable and directed the insurer to pay the same

¶30

M.A.C.A.No.347 of 2014

¶31

¶32

with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation.

¶33

According to Sri.A.V.M.Salahuddeen, the learned

¶34

counsel, the petitioner was employed as an L.D Clerk in the Revenue Department of Kozhikode Corporation. According to him from Ext.A6, the pay slip issued by the employer of the petitioner it was established that she had availed medical leave from 01.10.2011 till 21.03.2012 following the motor accident and was not paid salary for the period. The pay slip shows her monthly salary as Rs.16,432/-. According to the learned counsel though Ext.A6 was produced by her and marked in evidence, the Tribunal failed to consider that and to grant compensation for loss of earnings on it’s basis. The learned counsel has pointed out that the petitioner had sustained fracture of left femur and had also underwent two surgeries. She was also evidenced as treated inpatient for 13 days. According to him, in the above context, the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for loss of earning assessed on the basis of the salary certified in Ext.A6 for a period of 5 months and 21

¶35

M.A.C.A.No.347 of 2014

¶36

¶37

days. Since it is established from Ext.A6 marked in evidence that petitioner had availed medical leave for 5 months and 21 days and was on loss of pay during the period, this Court is inclined to award Rs.93,662/- (Rs.16,432/- for 5 months + 21 days) as compensation for loss of earning.

¶38

The learned counsel has urged to modify the compensation stands awarded under the head bystander expenses, transportation expenses, extra nourishment, damages to clothing, pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyments in life, to make it just and reasonable.

¶39

The learned counsel has also pointed out that the Tribunal assessed compensation for disability by fixing the monthly income of the petitioner notionally as Rs.3,500/- and the percentage of disability as 5%. According to him, Rs.4,500/- having been taken by the Apex Court for assessing the compensation payable in favour of a coolie worker who met with a motor accident in the year 2004, a sum corresponding to that in the year 2011 if considered would be reasonable. The learned counsel has also canvassed for taking the percentage of

¶40

M.A.C.A.No.347 of 2014

¶41

¶42

disability also on the higher side for assessment of compensation for loss of future earning power.

¶43

True that the petitioner had sustained fracture of left

¶44

femur and had underwent two operations for interlocking nailing and removal of implants. She was treated as inpatient for 13 days. The accident being occurred in the year 2011, Rs.250/- is found a reasonable sum to be considered per day towards bystander expenses. When the compensation is reassessed on the basis, the sum payable under the head bystander expenses would be Rs.3,250/-. Rs.2,600/- being the sum stands awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.650/- would be payable under that head additionally. The compensation awarded towards transportation expenses being Rs.500/- only, this Court is inclined to enhance it to Rs.3,000/-, so that the petitioner would get Rs.2,500/- additionally. Under the head extra nourishment and damages to clothing sums awarded being Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- respectively, this Court is inclined to award Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- more additionally. Under the head pain and sufferings the petitioner had claimed

¶45

M.A.C.A.No.347 of 2014

¶46

¶47

Rs.30,000/- but the Tribunal awarded only Rs.15,000/-. This Court is inclined to modify it to Rs.30,000/- so that the petitioner would get Rs.15,000/- additionally under that head.

¶48

Under the head loss of amenities the Tribunal had awarded Rs.10,000/- and that being low this Court is inclined to enhance it to Rs.15,000/-, so that the petitioner would get Rs.5,000/- in addition.

¶49

The petitioner is an employee under the Revenue Department and therefore she would retire at the age of 56. Till 56 years, she would get the salary as certified in Ext.A6 itself. In view of the disability certified in Ext.A3, she may not be able to attend any job as a normal person after retirement. True that the Medical Practitioner who has issued Ext.A3 was not examined. Petitioner did not even mount the box to depose about her disability on her own. However in Ext.A3, 22% has

¶50

been certified as the permanent disability and the Tribunal had taken only 5%. This Court finds such a consideration unjust and is inclined to take 12%. The accident being occurred in the year 2011 and taking into account of the year of retirement,

¶51

M.A.C.A.No.347 of 2014

¶52

¶53

this Court finds it reasonable to take Rs.8,000/- as the monthly income that may be earned by the petitioner after retirement. Compensation for loss of future earning capacity when assessed on the basis of the monthly income and percentage of disability taken as 12% the petitioner would get Rs.1,03,680/- as compensation under the head. Rs.18,900/- having been awarded by the Tribunal under the head, when deducted therefrom, the petitioner would get Rs.84,780/- additionally. When reassessed in the above manner, the total sum payable in addition would be Rs.2,03,092/- which would carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The 3^rd respondent shall deposit Rs.2,03,092/- (Rupees Two lakhs Three thousand and Ninety two only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation as additional compensation in favour of the petitioner within two months from the date of this judgment.

¶54

The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent has pointed out that a delay of 81 days was occurred in filing the appeal on hand and seeks for exoneration from paying interest

¶55

M.A.C.A.No.347 of 2014

¶56

¶57

for the period. This Court is inclined to allow the prayer and

¶58

thereby, the 3^rd respondent is exonerated from paying interest for the additional compensation now arrived at, for 81 days of

¶59

delay occurred in filing the appeal on hand.

¶60

M.A.C.A stands allowed accordingly.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

JUDGE

¶63

NAB

Jareesha Latheef v. Muhammad Jalaludheen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jareesha Latheef v. Muhammad Jalaludheen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Salim K.M., Vs the State of Kerala

Sunil v G Vs v a Mohanan

Andikkat Shihabudheen @ Shihab Vs Binu T.V.

Gopakumar Vs Mathew John

Poornachandran Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Vinod Vs K.J.Antony