Partly allowed

M.Retnakaran v. Aboobacker Siddique

Kerala HC17 Nov 2022MACA/4053/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a motor accident appeal filed by an injured petitioner challenging the low quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Court enhanced the compensation by increasing the notional income, adjusting disability-related calculations, and extending bystander expenses.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.1,69,240 with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing the petition till realization awarded to the appellant.

M.Retnakaran Vs Aboobacker Siddique — Insurance | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 4053 OF 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 700/2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,TRIVANDRUM

¶7

APPELLANT:

¶8

M.RETNAKARAN

¶9

MADHAVAM VEEDU PANAMVILA,
MUNDAIKONAM, NALANCHIRA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV SRI.M.R.SARIN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE S/O.SHAMSUDEEN,SIDIQUE MANZIL 36, 5/492,KADASSERRY,PIRAVATHOOR, KOLLAM.

¶12

2 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE NEW INDIAN ASSURANCE COMPANY, REMA PLAZA, SSVCOIL ROAD, THAMPANOOR,THIRUVANANTHAPUAM.

¶13

BY ADV LAL K.JOSEPH

¶14

 BY ADV K.M.FAISAL, GP

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶16

MACA NO. 4053 OF 2016

¶17

¶18

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. =================== M.A.C.A No. 4053 OF 2016

¶19

=================== Dated this the 17^th day of November 2022

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

This appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P (MV) No.700/2007 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. It was a claim petition filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Hereinafter the parties are mentioned in accordance to their rank before the Tribunal).

¶22

Appellant/petitioner is the injured in this case. The appellant sustained injury in a motor accident and the claim petition was filed claiming compensation.

¶23

To substantiate the case, Exts.A1 to A19 were marked on the side of the petitioner. After going through the evidence and documents, the tribunal found that, the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of 1^st respondent and the 2^nd respondent is liable to pay

¶24

¶25

MACA NO. 4053 OF 2016

¶26

compensation. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the tribunal fixed the compensation as Rs. 1,09,360/- which was rounded to Rs. 1,10,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the petition till realisation. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, this appeal is filed.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶28

The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that, the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is too low considering the serious nature of injury.

¶29

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that, sufficient amount is awarded by the tribunal and there is nothing to interfere.

¶30

The 1^st ground raised by the leaned counsel for the appellant is that, the quantum of compensation awarded for loss of future earning power is too low. The learned counsel submitted that notional income is fixed as Rs.4,500/-. According to the learned counsel, the accident

¶31

MACA NO. 4053 OF 2016

¶32

¶33

happened in the year 2007. There is some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. In Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram [2011(13) SCC 236], the Apex Court fixed an amount of Rs.4,500/- as monthly income to a coolie in the year 2004. The notional income ought to have been fixed as Rs.6,000/- per month in the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa’s case (Supra). The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, the medical board issued a certificate as evident by Annexure-A19 in which the disability of the petitioner is assessed as 20%. The tribunal rejected the same observing that there is no neurologist in the team of doctors, who examined the appellant. When the medical board certified that the appellant sustained 20% disability, the tribunal ought not to have reduced the disability to 6% without any material to contradict the report of the medical board. According to me, the tribunal ought to have accepted the disability found by the medical board.

¶34

As far as the by stander expense is concerned, the tribunal granted the same for 6 days. Admittedly, the

¶35

¶36

MACA NO. 4053 OF 2016

¶37

appellant was an inpatient for 14 days. I think, the bye stander expense can be granted for 14 days. The total claim of the appellant is only Rs.5000/- I think the same can be allowed.

¶38

As far as the compensation for loss of amenities is concerned, the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- I think a further amount of Rs. 5000/- can be awarded in this head also.

¶39

Regarding loss of earnings, the tribunal has taken Rs.4500/- as the income. Since I already found that notional income can be fixed as Rs.6000/- there will change in that head also.

¶40

In the light of the above findings, the enhanced compensation entitled by the appellant can be summarized like this after deducting the amount already granted by the tribunal.

¶41

loss of earnings (Rs.6,000X4=24,000-18,000) = Rs.6,000/-

¶42

By stander expense (Rs.5,000-3000) = Rs.2,000/-

¶43

MACA NO. 4053 OF 2016

¶44

¶45

Compensation for loss of future earnings (Rs.6,000X12X14X20/100 = = Rs.2,01,600-45,360) Rs.1,56,240/-

¶46

Compensation for loss of amenities = (Rs.20,000-15,000) Rs.5,000/-

¶47

¶48

Total Rs.1,69,240/-

¶49

== ========

¶50

The appellant is entitled interest @ 9% per annum.

¶51

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the effect that the appellant is entitled an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,69,240/- with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing the petition till realisation. The 2^nd respondent is directed to pay the enhanced compensation with interest as directed above.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶54

JUDGE

¶55

M.Retnakaran v. Aboobacker Siddique

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Retnakaran v. Aboobacker Siddique

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

Jayachandran Vs M.R.Binu

Koyyodan Damodaran Vs the District Collector, Kannur and Anoth

Vincent Vs Corporation of Cochin and Another

Anil Mathew Vs Nisamuddin

Sukesh S. Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Vs District Collector, Kottayam