Allowed

Roy Jacob v. Majeed @ Abdul Majeed

Kerala HC9 Mar 2023MACA/1279/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award, enhancing compensation for loss of earnings, permanent disability, and other heads. The court fixed notional income at Rs.6,000 and directed the insurer to deposit Rs.1,70,780 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.1,70,780 with interest at 7.5% per annum directed to be deposited by the insurer within two months.

Roy Jacob Vs Majeed @ Abdul Majeed — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 1279 OF 2014

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 163/2009 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

ROY JACOB
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.JACOB, KUMBALAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PUTHUKKAD, AMBALAVAYAL AMSOM, SULTHANBATHERY TALUK,
WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673 592.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
SMT.P.V.PARVATHI
SMT.REENA THOMAS

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1MAJEED @ ABDUL MAJEED
AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.HANEEFA, MADATHILTHODI HOUSE,
NELLARACHAL, WAYANAD DISTRICT - 673 593.
(DRIVER OF KL-12C-3693 MOTOR CYCLE)
2BAIJU
FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN, AGE NOT KNOWN,
VADUVANKALATHIL HOUSE, VADUVANCHAL POST, AMBALAVAYAL,
WAYANAD - 673 581.(OWNER OF KL-12-C-3693 MOTOR CYCLE)
3NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
VIGNESWARA BUILDING, NEAR OVER BRIDGE, 7,
PUDUKKOTTAI ROAD, THIRUCHIRAPPALLY,
TAMILNADU - 621 315.
(INSURER OF KL-12C-3693 MOTOR CYCLE).
BY ADV
SRI.E.M.JOSEPH

¶11

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶12

MACA NO.1279 OF 2014

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Dated this the 09^th day of March, 2023

¶16

The appeal has been preferred by the claimant in O.P. (MV) No.163/2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Wayanad, Kalpetta, assailing the award on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.

¶17

The appellant met with a road traffic accident on 15.12.2007, at 10 pm, while he was riding a motor bike at Ambalavayal. KL-12-C-3693, motor bike ridden by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against his motor cycle, and he fell down and sustained multiple fractures including fracture of right femur, right patella, right Tibia and right Zygomatic complex, and he was hospitalised for 7 days. He suffered permanent disability of 18% due to the accident. He approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. Five lakhs. But the Tribunal awarded only Rs.2,45,080/- and hence this appeal.

¶18

MACA NO.1279 OF 2014

¶19

¶20

The 1^st respondent was the rider, 2^nd respondent

¶21

was the owner, and 3^rd respondent was the insurer of the offending motor cycle. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex

¶22

parte. The accident, injuries and the policy of the offending motor cycle are not in dispute.

¶23

Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A11 and C1 were marked.

¶24

Now let us see whether any interference is warranted in the impugned award.

¶25

Heard learned counsel Sri.Mohan Jacob George, appearing for the appellant and Sri.E.M.Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent – Insurer.

¶26

The appellant who was examined as PW1 before the Tribunal, deposed that, he was a 35 year old electronic technician earning monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. But the Tribunal fixed his notional income @ Rs.3,000/-. It is true that no documents were produced by him to prove his job or

¶27

MACA NO.1279 OF 2014

¶28

¶29

income. But an electronic technician in the year 2007, might have been earning a monthly income of more than Rs.3,000/-. Going by the decision Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951] , even a casual laborer was eligible to get his notional income fixed @ Rs.6,000/- per month in the year 2007. So, this Court is inclined to fix the notional income of the appellant @ Rs.6,000/- per month.

¶30

He suffered Fracture of right femur, right patella, right Tibia, right metatarsals 2^nd , 3^rd , 4^th & 5^th and also fracture right Zygomatic complex. According to the appellant, he was not able to do any job for more than a year. But the Tribunal took ‘loss of earnings’ only for 6 months. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant, this Court think it just to assess his loss of earning for a period of 8 months @ Rs.6,000/-. That would come to Rs.48,000/- ( 6,000 x 8 ). He was already paid Rs.18,000/- under the head loss of earnings.

¶31

MACA NO.1279 OF 2014

¶32

¶33

So he is eligible to the balance amount of Rs.30,000/- as enhanced compensation under the head ‘loss of earnings’.

¶34

He was hospitalised only for 7 days and that may be the reason for the Tribunal to award Rs.700/- towards bystander expenses and extra nourishment. He had suffered multiple fractures including fracture of right femur, and he might have been under rest and extra nourishment even after discharge from hospital. Considering that fact, this Court is inclined to award Rs.6,000/- towards bystander expenses. After deducting Rs.700/- already paid, he is eligible to get the balance amount of Rs.5,300/-. For extra nourishment also, this Court is inclined to award Rs.2,500/-. After deducting Rs.700 already paid. He is eligible to get Rs.1,800/- under the head ‘Extra nourishment’.

¶35

Towards compensation for permanent disability, the Tribunal took his notional income as Rs.3,000/-. By taking his monthly income as Rs.6,000/- and multiplier as 16, for

¶36

MACA NO.1279 OF 2014

¶37

¶38

18% disability, the compensation for permanent disability can be assessed as Rs.2,07,360/-. He was already paid Rs.1,03,680/-. So he is eligible to get the balance Rs.1,03,680/- as enhanced compensation for ‘permanent disability’.

¶39

Towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded

¶40

Rs.20,000/-. Considering the multiple fractures suffered by the appellant, and the period of hospitalisation and the subsequent period of rest, this Court is inclined to award Rs.10,000/- more under the head ‘Pain and sufferings’.

¶41

Towards loss of amenities, the Tribunal awarded no amount. Since the appellant suffered multiple fractures and sustained permanent disability of 18%, this Court is inclined to award Rs.20,000/- towards ‘loss of amenities‘.

¶42

The compensation awarded under other heads seems to be reasonable and so it needs no interference.

¶43

MACA NO.1279 OF 2014

¶44

¶45

Head of claim	Amount awarded by the Tribunal	Amount awarded in the appeal	Amounts deducted in appeal	Difference to be drawn as enhanced compensation
Loss of earnings	Rs.18,000/-	Rs.48,000/-	---	Rs.30,000/-
By stander expenses	Rs.700/-	Rs.6,000/-		Rs.5,300/-
Extra nourishment	Rs.700/-	Rs.2,500/-		Rs.1,800/-
Permanent disability	Rs.1,03,680/-	Rs.2,07,360/-		Rs.1,03,680/-
Pain and Sufferings	Rs.20,000/-	Rs.30,000/-		Rs.10,000/-
Loss of amenities	---	Rs.20,000/-		Rs.20,000/-
Total				Rs.1,70,780/-

¶46

The appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.1,70,780/- ( 30,000 + 5,300 + 1,800 + 1,03,680 + 10,000 + 20,000 ).

¶47

The policy is admitted and the liability of the insurer to compensate the injured is not in dispute. So, the 3^rd

¶48

MACA NO.1279 OF 2014

¶49

¶50

respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,70,780/- in the bank account of the appellant with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit (excluding 796 days of delay in filing the appeal), within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The deposit must be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06.09.2019 and clarified in O.M. No.D1/62475/2016 dated 07.11.2019 after deducting the liabilities, if any, of the appellant towards Tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund.

¶51

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE

¶54

ded/09.03.2023

Roy Jacob v. Majeed @ Abdul Majeed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roy Jacob v. Majeed @ Abdul Majeed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Susheela

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs P.K.Velayudhan

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gopakumar

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Vs Rajan

Dileep Vs Varghese.P.M

Rajeesh Vs E.Raneesh