Allowed

Ajith Kumar v. Shrihari Rao

Kerala HC11 Aug 2022MACA/957/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal arose from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarding compensation for life injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The High Court found the awarded compensation for loss of earnings, pain and sufferings, and loss of amenities was low. It enhanced the compensation by Rs.45,000, applying the income ratio from Ramachandrappa.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.45,000 to be granted with 8% interest, to be deposited by the insurance company within two months.

Ajith Kumar Vs Shrihari Rao — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN THURSDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶4

MACA NO. 957 OF 2013

¶5

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)NO.319/2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR

¶6

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶7

AJITH KUMAR

¶8

S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, NALLOOTHARA HOUSE, S. ADUVASSERY P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV M.C.MONY

¶9

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :

¶10

1 SHRIHARI RAO, S/O SUBBAIAH, MORNING STAR TRAVELS, OPP. RTC BUS STAND, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH-522403.

¶11

2 SAMBASIVA RAO

¶12

S/O CHINNAVERAYYA, C/O MORNING STAR TRAVELS, OPP. RTC BUS STAND, GUNTUR, ANDHRAPRADESH-522403 3 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BHAVIRISETTIVARI STREET, D.NO.9-1-30, SATTENAPALLI-522403, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH.

¶13

BY ADV LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN

¶14

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

MACA No.957 of 2013

¶16

..2..

¶17

MACA No.957 of 2013

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Award in O.P.(MV)No.319 of 2007 on the file of

¶20

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the petitioner before the Tribunal. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶22

appellant as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the

¶23

insurance company.

¶24

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶25

The case of the appellant before the Tribunal is

¶26

MACA No.957 of 2013

¶27

..3..

¶28

that he sustained injuries pursuant to an accident occurred on 12.12.2006 at about 9.30 p.m., while he

¶29

was riding on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL7/AH-1667 through Angamaly-Chalakudy NH road and

¶30

when he was knocked down by bus bearing Registration No.AP 20 T/7599 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner. He lodged claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and canvassed Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation from respondents 1 to 3.

¶31

R1 and R2 were set ex parte by the

¶32

Tribunal.

¶33

R3 filed written statement disputing the

¶34

accident and negligence, while admitting policy. Quantum also was disputed.

¶35

MACA No.957 of 2013

¶36

..4..

¶37

The Tribunal marked documentary

¶38

evidence confined to Exts.A1 to A14 series on the part of the appellant and Ext.B1 marked on the side of the respondents. Thereafter, the Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs.2,38,880/- along with 8% interest as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-.

¶39

The learned counsel for the appellant

¶40

would submit that the amount granted under the head loss of earnings, pain and sufferings as well as loss of amenities in a case involving multiple injuries and prolonged treatment is on the lower side and therefore, reasonable increase under those heads are liable to be granted. He conceded the fact that no disability certificate produced to prove any disability on account of the injuries.

¶41

MACA No.957 of 2013

¶42

..5..

¶43

Repelling the submission, the learned

¶44

counsel for the insurer would submit that apart from recalculating the loss of earnings based on the income following the ratio of the decision in [(2011) 13 SCC 236], Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., no amount on other heads to be increased, as the Tribunal granted reasonable compensation on those heads.

¶45

In this matter, the appellant claimed his income at Rs.5,000/- as a lorry driver, aged 25 years. The accident is of the year 2006. Therefore, the monthly income claimed at Rs.5,000/- as such is accepted for the purpose of re-calculating the loss of earnings. In this matter, as borne out from Ext.A3 wound certificate, the following injuries could be gathered:

¶46

MACA No.957 of 2013

¶47

..6..

¶48

Lacerated wound on the frontal region.

¶49

Bleeding from the right ear.

¶50

Bleeding from the nose.

¶51

Lacerated wound on the chin.

¶52

Lacerated wound on the supra-labial region.

¶53

Multiple tooth loss, upper anterior teeth.

¶54

Contused abrasion on the face and extremities.

¶55

Apart from that, Ext.A8 discharge

¶56

summary, Ext.A10 treatment certificate, Ext.A11 subsequent discharge summary etc., would go to show that the appellant underwent treatment for fracture of

¶57

femur by IMIL nailing and subsequent removal of the same. Therefore, loss of earnings can be increased for a period of eight months at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per

¶58

MACA No.957 of 2013

¶59

..7..

¶60

month. Thus, the loss of earnings is as under;

¶61

5,000x8 = Rs.40,000/-

¶62

Out of which, Rs.12,000/- was granted by the

¶63

Tribunal. Rs.40,000-12,000= Rs.28,000/- more is granted

¶64

under the head loss of earnings.

¶65

Coming to the head 'pain and sufferings',

¶66

the Tribunal granted the same at Rs.30,000/- and also Rs.20,000/- under the head 'loss of amenities'. Apart from that, towards loss of three teeth, Rs.7,500/- was granted by the Tribunal. Considering the prolonged treatment and the multiple fractures, Rs.7,000/- more is granted under the head 'pain and sufferings' and Rs.10,000/- more is granted under the head 'loss of amenities'.

¶67

In the result, this appeal is allowed. It is

¶68

MACA No.957 of 2013

¶69

..8..

¶70

ordered that the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand only) at the rate of 8% interest granted by the Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation excluding the period of 116 days wherein, grant of interest was specifically disallowed by the order in C.M.Application No.1166 of 2013 dated 21.07.2022. The insurance company is directed to deposit the same in the name of the appellant within two months from today. On deposit, the appellant can release the

¶71

same.

¶72

Sd/-

¶73

A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE

¶74

rkj

Ajith Kumar v. Shrihari Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajith Kumar v. Shrihari Rao

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

Sunitha M.R Vs Abdul Jaleel M.K

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Jameskutty Varghese

Binoj Vs James Kutty Varghese

Rukmini Vs K.G.Babu

Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. Ltd. Vs George Wilson

Rukiya Vs Sadeesh