Allowed

V.H.Shamsu Hassan v. Abdul Azeezkutty

Kerala HC22 Aug 2022MACA/767/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation awarded for a motor accident victim on grounds of pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and loss of earnings, while fixing income multiplier and adjusting interest rates accounting for appeal delay.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.12,12,982; interest on enhanced amount fixed at 5% from date of petition; amount to be transferred via NEFT/RTGS within one month.

V.H.Shamsu Hassan Vs Abdul Azeezkutty — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

M.A.C.A.767/2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

MONDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1944

¶7

MACA NO. 767 OF 2013

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTOPMV 1838/2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

¶9

TRIBUNAL ,ERNAKULAM

¶10

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶11

V.H.SHAMSU HASSAN S/O. HASSAN, VAILOPPILLY HOUSE, PALLIKKARA, KUMARAPURAM.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.ANILA PETER SMT.C.PRABITHA SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.J.VIVEK GEORGE

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 ABDUL AZEEZKUTTY FLAT NO. 4A, STAR HOMES, CHERUPARAMBATH ROAD, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-682020.

¶15

2 NITHIN AZEEZ S/O. ABDUL AZEEZKUTTY, FLAT NO. 4A, STAR HOMES, CHERUPARAMBATH ROD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682020.

¶16

3 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGER, MTPCO, VETTUKATTIL BUILDING, ERNAKULAM.

¶17

BY ADV SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,UNITED INDIA INSURANCE

¶18

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

M.A.C.A.767/2013

¶20

¶21

C.JAYACHANDRAN, J

¶22

M.A.C.A.No.767 of 2013

¶23

Dated this the 22^nd day of August, 2022

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

1. The injured who met with an accident on

¶26

11.05.2006 is the appellant. He impugns the award dated 15.03.2011 in O.P.(M.V).No.1838 of 2006 of the Motor

¶27

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, which is a common award delivered along with another original petition.

¶28

The appellant essentially impugns the quantum of

¶29

compensation granted by the learned Tribunal on various grounds.

¶30

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

¶31

the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurance

¶32

company. Perused the records.

¶33

3. The first point contended by the learned

¶34

counsel for the appellant is with respect to the monthly

¶35

income which has been reckoned by the Tribunal

¶36

M.A.C.A.767/2013

¶37

¶38

@Rs.3,500/-. Petitioner, though claimed that he was working as a driver at the time of accident, has not produced any document in support thereof. Therefore, the

¶39

notional income as indicated in Ramachandrappa v.

¶40

Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [2011 KHC 4675] is to be considered, which points to Rs.5,500/- pertaining to the year 2006. However, the appellant had only claimed Rs.4,500/-, wherefore the monthly income is fixed at Rs.4,500/-. As regards the multiplier, the Tribunal reckoned 15, which is erroneous. The correct multiplier, going by the age of the injured at the time of accident (34 years), is 16.

¶41

4. The next head is under 'pain and suffering',

¶42

where the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to paragraph no.11 of the impugned award, which narrates the injuries sustained by the petitioner/appellant. A

¶43

perusal of paragraphs 11 and 12 would indicate that the petitioner had suffered as many as 4 fractures and he

¶44

was an inpatient for a period of 14 days. Initially, he

¶45

M.A.C.A.767/2013

¶46

¶47

was admitted in the Medical Centre Hospital, Ernakulam

¶48

and thereafter at Lakeshore Hospital. Having regard to the injuries sustained as narrated in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the award, this Court is of the opinion that,

¶49

compensation under the head pain and suffering has to be enhanced to Rs.45,000/- from Rs.30,000/-.

¶50

5. The next head is with respect to 'loss of

¶51

amenities', which is reckoned at Rs.30,000/-. For the same set of reasons as referred to while dealing with pain and suffering, this Court is inclined to enhance the loss on account of amenities to Rs.50,000/-. In doing so, this Court relies upon Ext.X1, the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, wherein, disability has been assessed at 30%. Another head is with respect to the 'loss of earnings', where the Tribunal reckoned the loss for a period of three months, which is grossly insufficient, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant. It seems that, the period reckoned by the Tribunal is insufficient, having regard to the injuries and also the fact that,

¶52

M.A.C.A.767/2013

¶53

¶54

petitioner was an inpatient for a period of 14 days. A period of six months would be reasonable for the purpose of assessing the loss of earning of the

¶55

petitioner/appellant. The attendant's expenses has been granted @Rs.200/- per day, which requires to be enhanced to @Rs.300/- per day.

¶56

compensation amount payable to the petitioner/appellant is indicated in the tabular statement given herewith.

¶57

Sl. No.	Head of Claim	Amount awarded by the Tribunal	Total amount after enhancement in appeal
1	Loss of earnings	10,500	27,000/-
			[4500x6]
2	Partial loss of earnings	-	-
3	Transportation Expenses	2,000	2,000
4	Damage to clothing & Articles	500	500
5	Extra Nourishment	2,000	2,000

¶58

M.A.C.A.767/2013

¶59

¶60

6	Medical Expenses	8,23,082	8,23,082
7	Attendance Expenses	2,800	4,200
			[Rs.300 x 14]
8	Compensation for pain and sufferings	30,000	45,000
9	Compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life	30,000	50,000
10	For permanent disability	1,89,000	2,59,200 (4500x12x16x30/100)
11	For loss of earning power	-	-
12	For future treatment	-	-
	Total	10,89,882	12,12,982
Amo	unt enhanced = Rs.10,89,882	– Rs.12,12	,982 =Rs.1,23,100/

¶61

7. 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 amount has already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. Since there was a delay of 669 days in filing the appeal, the interest for the enhanced quantum shall not

¶62

M.A.C.A.767/2013

¶63

¶64

run for the said period as directed in order dated 10.01.2022 in C.M.A.No.1/2013 in M.A.C.A.767/2013. 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

¶65

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

¶66

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

¶67

The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

¶68

JUDGE

¶69

Sbna/

V.H.Shamsu Hassan v. Abdul Azeezkutty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.H.Shamsu Hassan v. Abdul Azeezkutty

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

Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Jose.v.S

C.D.Raphy Vs Aymukutty

Felwin @ Felwin Francis.M Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.

Bhaskaran Vs Aboobacker V.M.

Buburaj Vs Prasannan

United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs Remya.N.R