Allowed

Noufal C. v. Mohammed Musthafa

Kerala HC7 Dec 2022MACA/778/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court set aside the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award, which applied workmen compensation methods. The Court enhanced compensation for loss of earning, pain and suffering, extra nourishment, bystander expenses, loss of amenities, transportation, and damages to clothing, resulting in an additional payment to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.65,150/- granted with interest from filing date, except for the period of 236 days delay by the appellant.

Noufal C. Vs Mohammed Musthafa — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 778 OF 2012

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN O.P (MV) NO.786/2006 OF MOTOR

¶7

ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER :-

¶9

NOUFAL C., S/O.MOHAMMED,
CHUNKATH HOUSE, POOVATHANI, THAZHEKODE P.O.,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :-

¶12

1MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA, S/O.MOIDEEN,
ERINGATHODI HOUSE, ALIPARAMBA P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679357.

¶13

2 ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O.UMMER, MANAMULLKY HOUSE, CHETHALLUR P.O., MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678609.

¶14

3 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, KORAMBAYIL ARCADE, PANDIKKA ROAD, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676121.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶17

MACA NO. 778 OF 201 2

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 07^th day of December, 2022

¶21

The appeal on hand is filed challenging an award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on 29.03.2011 in O.P.(MV) No.786/2006. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 in accordance with their status in the Original Petition.

¶22

The Tribunal has passed an award in the above Original Petition, for a sum of Rs.3,29,652/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum form the date of filing of the Original Petition till deposit. The third respondent, the insurer was directed to compensate the petitioner in accordance with the liability limited under Ext.B1. The rest of the amount was directed to be paid by the first and second respondents, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle jointly and

¶23

MACA NO. 778 OF 201 2

¶24

¶25

severally. The award is under challenge for the reason that the compensation stands granted is unjust and unreasonable.

¶26

According to Shri.K.M.Sathyanatha Menon, the

¶27

learned counsel for the petitioner, the Tribunal has adopted an erroneous method of calculation of compensation. According to him, the Tribunal ought to have opted the method of calculation in motor accident cases. According to him, Rs.3,000/- was fixed by the Tribunal as the monthly income of the injured, which is highly unjust and unreasonable. Only six months’ period was considered by the Tribunal for calculating compensation for loss of earnings. According to him, the Tribunal failed to award reasonable sums as compensation towards bystander expenses, damages to clothing and transportation expenses and interference of this Court is warranted to enhance those. According to him, as compensation towards pain and suffering also the Tribunal confined granting of a sum of Rs.10,000/-, which is disproportionate to the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the

¶28

MACA NO. 778 OF 201 2

¶29

4

¶30

motor accident. As compensation towards extra nourishment and loss of amenities and enjoyments in life also, the Tribunal failed to award reasonable sums and interference is inevitable.

¶31

The learned counsel for the third respondent contended on the contrary that the policy copy is produced and marked in evidence as Ext.B1. According to him, as per the policy, premium was collected only to cover the risk of an employee as contemplated by Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’) and the compensation has been rightly calculated and granted by the Tribunal in accordance with law. According to him, interference with the method of calculation adopted by the Tribunal is unwarranted. The learned counsel for the third respondent has also contended that under various other heads for which modification is sought by the petitioner, the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation and therefore, the appeal is only liable to be dismissed.

¶32

MACA NO. 778 OF 201 2

¶33

5

¶34

It was averred in the Original Petition seeking

¶35

compensation that while travelling in a Lorry bearing Registration No.KL 9B 4033 as it’s cleaner, the petitioner met with the motor accident in question and sustained injuries. According to him, the motor accident was occurred at about 5.30 pm on 11.06.2005 at Karamkode situated in Poovathani-Thootha road and thereby the petitioner sustained injuries. He was transported to Al-Shifa Hospital, Perinthalmanna for treatment and was treated there as inpatient for 33 days. He had sustained a contusion on the left occipital region and fracture of occipital bone. Acute left subdural haemotoma was also detected, which later on developed to moderate cerebellar ataxia. Tracheotomy was also done as procedure of treatment. At the time of discharge he was also advised to continue medication.

¶36

Before the Tribunal, the petitioner had marked Exts.A1 to A9 series and Ext.X1 in evidence. On the side of the respondents, copy of the certificate of insurance alone was

¶37

MACA NO. 778 OF 201 2

¶38

¶39

produced and marked as Ext.B1 in evidence. On the basis of Exts.A2 wound certificate, Ext.A3, discharge summary and Ext.A7 treatment certificate, the Tribunal found that the petitioner had sustained injuries and was treated as inpatient for 33 days. Injuries being caused in a motor accident the Tribunal

¶40

is not justified in adopting the method of calculation of compensation as in workmen compensation cases. Petitioner was subjected to an operation during hospitalization. The medical expenditure incurred by him is evidenced from Ext.A9 series of medical bills. Ext.X1 is a certificate issued by a Medical Board where the permanent disability of the petitioner was certified as 55%.

¶41

Based on evidence adduced as above, the Tribunal found that the petitioner is entitled to get compensation from the respondents. The Tribunal found on the basis of Ext.B1 policy that it covers petitioner’s risk under the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal adopted the method of calculation of compensation as

¶42

MACA NO. 778 OF 201 2

¶43

¶44

per Section 4 of the Act. Compensation was also arrived at in accordance with the Schedule of the Act and therefore interference is totally unwarranted.

¶45

The petitioner had claimed Rs.3,000/- as his monthly income in the Original Petition. The Tribunal had taken that sum itself as the monthly income of the petitioner. Period for which compensation stands awarded for loss of earning is found inadequate when viewed in the backdrop of the nature of injuries sustained and this Court fixes the period as 12 months. When compensation is re-assessed with the modified period, Rs.36,000/- (Rs.3,000/- x 12) is arrived at. Rs.18,000/- stands already awarded by the Tribunal, when deducted therefrom, the petitioner will get Rs.18,000/- (Rs.36,000/- - Rs.18,000/-) as additional compensation. Rs.10,000/- stands awarded by the Tribunal for pain and suffering being disproportionate to the injuries sustained, this Court awards Rs.15,000/- more. As compensation towards extra nourishment, the Tribunal failed to

¶46

MACA NO. 778 OF 201 2

¶47

¶48

award compensation and this Court awards Rs.6,600/-. As compensation towards bystander expenses, the Tribunal arrived at compensation by taking Rs.100/- per day for 33 days. This Court finds it unreasonable and substitute Rs.200/- in the place of Rs.100/- adopted by the Tribunal. Thus the petitioner will get Rs.3,300/- [(Rs.200/- x 33) – Rs.3,300/-] as additional compensation. As compensation towards loss of amenities and enjoyments in life, the Tribunal failed to award any sum and this Court awards Rs.20,000/-. As compensation towards transportation, Rs.500/- only was awarded and this Court enhances it to Rs.2,000/-. Therefore, the petitioner will get Rs.1,500/- (Rs.2,000/- - Rs.500/-) more. As compensation towards damages to clothing, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.250/- and this Court awards Rs.750/- more.

¶49

In the above manner of calculation, Rs.65,150/- (Rupees Sixty five thousand one hundred and fifty only) (Rs.18,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.6,600/- + Rs.3,300/- + Rs.20,000/- + Rs.1,500/-

¶50

MACA NO. 778 OF 201 2

¶51

¶52

Rs.750/-) is arrived at as additional compensation. The said amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Petition till the date of deposit. Under Ext.B1 policy the third respondent’s liability is limited to compensation payable under Section 4 of Act, 1923. The Tribunal also found accordingly. The additional compensation now arrived at shall be paid by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, in accordance with the direction issued by this Court in Circular No.03/2019 dated 06.09.2019. Filing of the appeal on hand being delayed by 236 days, respondents 1 and 2 is exonerated from paying interest for the period.

¶53

MACA stands allowed accordingly. Sd/-

¶54

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE

¶55

SMA

Noufal C. v. Mohammed Musthafa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noufal C. v. Mohammed Musthafa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lali Vs Sunny Dominic

Abdul Azeez Vs Antony Mathew

Thykoodam Edavaka Christeeya Sangam Vs St Raphael’S Church

A.v.Sreedharan Vs Pradeeepkumar and Others

Kunjachan.K.J. Vs Santhosh

Snehamol Chacko Vs Abdul Majid