Partly allowed

Rincia @ Rinciya Rahim,Rep.by Her Father v. Manoharan and Others

Kerala HC11 Oct 2023MACA/1286/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court reviewed three motor accident claim appeals arising from the same accident involving a motorcycle, a bus, and a lorry. The Court set aside the Tribunal's 10% contributory negligence finding regarding the motorcycle riders due to overloading as unsupported by evidence. The Court further enhanced the compensation quantum for medical expenses, disability, hospitalization, and pa

What did the court decide?

Contributory negligence finding set aside; compensation enhanced by adding Rs. 81,010, Rs. 20,214, and Rs. 44,433 for the respective appellants.

Rincia @ Rinciya Rahim,Rep.by Her Father Vs Manoharan… — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 19TH ASWINA, 1945

¶5

MACA NO. 1286 OF 2011

¶6

OPMV 2609/2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM

¶7

APPELLANT/S:

¶8

RINCIA @ RINCIYA RAHIM,REP.BY HER FATHER
AGED 12, REP. BY HER NEXT FRIEND AND FATHER, P.M.
ABDUL RAHI, AGED 44, S/O.ALI, PLASSERIL HOUSE,
III/22, PANCHAYATH VALAVU,MADAVANA-PANANGAD ROAD,
PANANGAD.P.O.,DESOM,KUMBALAM VILLAGE,KAN
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SUDHISH
SMT.M.MANJU
SMT.NEETHU PREM
SRI.K.R.RANJITH

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 MANOHARAN, KARAYATHARA HOUSE, POONITHURA.P.O., MARADU,, MARADU-682304.

¶11

2 M.V. JOSEPH SO. VARKEY MANDAPATHIL HOUSE, KULAMBUKAD DESOM, KALLARA KARA, KALLARA, VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686611.

¶12

3 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE, DAMODHAR CHAMBERS,, STATUE JUNCTION, TRIPUNITHURA-682301.

¶13

4 M.P. SALIMOL WO. ASHOKAN MULLAKKERIVELI HOUSE, THRICHATTUKULAM.P.O.,, PANAVALLY, CHERTHALA-688581.

¶14

5 CHANDRA BABU SO. BHASKARAN, KADAYAKKAL HOUSE, WARD NO.3, PANAVALLY.P.O.,, CHERTHALA-688566. BY ADVS. SRI.E.M.JOSEPH SRI.N.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.10.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.1287/2011,
1288/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶16

M.A.C.A. No.1286, 1287 & 1288 of 2011

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023/19TH ASWINA, 1945

¶21

MACA NO. 1287 OF 2011

¶22

OPMV 2612/2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/S:

¶23

P.M.ABDUL RAHIM, S/O.ALI, PLASSERIL HOUSE,
III/22,, PANCHAYATH VALAVU, MADAVANA-PANANGAD
ROAD,, PANANGAD P.O., PANANGAD DESOM, KUMBALAM
VILLAGE,, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SUDHISH
SMT.M.MANJU
SMT.NEETHU PREM
SRI.K.R.RANJITH

¶24

RESPONDENT/S:

¶25

1 MANOHARAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN,, KARAYATHARA HOUSE, POONITHURA P.O., MARADU,, MARADU-682304.

¶26

2 M.V.JOSEPH, S/O.VARKEY, MANDAPATHIL HOUSE,, KULAMBUKAD DESOM, KALLARA KARA,, KALLARA VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK,, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686611.

¶27

3 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE, DAMODHAR CHAMBERS,, STATUE JUNCTION, TRIPUNITHURA-682301.

¶28

4 M.P.SALIMOL WO.ASHOKAN, MULLAKKERIVELI HOUSE,, THRICHATTUKULAM P.O.,PANAVALLY, CHERTHALA-688581.

¶29

5 CHANDRA BABU SO.BHASKARAN, KADAYAKKAL HOUSE, WARD NO.3,, PANAVALLY P.O., CHERTHALA-688566. BY ADVS. Joseph E M SRI.P.JAYASANKAR

¶30

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.10.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.1286/2011 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶31

M.A.C.A. No.1286, 1287 & 1288 of 2011

¶32

: 3 :

¶33

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶34

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 19TH ASWINA, 1945

¶35

MACA NO. 1288 OF 2011

¶36

OPMV 2863/2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ERNAKULAM

¶37

APPELLANT/S:

¶38

SHERINA RAHIM

¶39

W/O.ABDUL RAHIM,PLASSERIL HOUSE,111/22,,
PANCHAYATH VALAVU,MADAVANA-PANANGAD ROAD,,
PANANGAD PO,PANANGAD DESOM,KUMBALAM VILLAGE,,
KANAYANNUR TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN 682 506.

¶40

BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SUDHISH
SMT.M.MANJU
SMT.NEETHU PREM
SRI.K.R.RANJITH

¶41

RESPONDENT/S:

¶42

1 MANOHARAN, POONITHURA PO, MARADU, PIN 682 304.

¶43

2 M.V.JOSEPHSO.VARKEYMANDAPATHIL HOUSE KULAMBUKAD DESOM,KALLARA KARA,KALLARA VILLAGE,, VAIKOM TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 611.

¶44

3 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE, DAMODHAR CHAMBERS,, STATUE JUNCTION,TRIPUNITHURA 682 301.

¶45

4 M.P.SALIMOL,WO.ASHOKAN, MULLAKKERIVELI HOUSE, THRICHATTUKULAM PO,PANAVALLY,CHERTHALA 688 581.

¶46

5 CHANDRA BABUSO.BHASKARANKADAYAKKAL HOUSE,WARD NO.3,PANAVALLY PO,CHERTHALA 688 566. BY ADVS.

¶47

Joseph E M, SRI.FEBIN JAMES, SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH

¶48

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.10.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.1286/2011 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶49

M.A.C.A. No.1286, 1287 & 1288 of 2011

¶50

: 4 :

¶51

JUDGMENT

¶52

These appeals arise from a common award passed in O.P. (M.V.) Nos.2612/2004, 2609/2004 and 2863/2004 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. MACA No.1286/2011 was filed by the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.2609/2004, MACA No.1287/2011 was filed by the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.2612/2004 and MACA No.1288/2011 was filed by the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.2863/2004. All these claims are filed by the respective petitioners, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to them in a motor accident that occurred on 04.02.2004.

¶53

According to the appellants, the accident occurred when the appellant in MACA No.1287/2011 was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-7-AE-5091, along with his wife and two children, through Aroor-Vyttila NH Road, and when they reached Kundanoor, a bus bearing Registration No.KL-7-H-8901, driven by the 2^nd respondent, hit the motorcycle from behind. Consequent to the said hit, the motorcycle rider lost control and, thereupon, a lorry bearing Registration No.KL-4-D 6085, driven by the 5^th respondent, came

¶54

M.A.C.A. No.1286, 1287 & 1288 of 2011

¶55

: 5 :

¶56

from the opposite direction and hit the motorcycle. The appellants/petitioners sustained injuries. They were immediately taken to Lakeshore Hospital, Maradu, and they availed treatment therein. The claim petitions were submitted in such circumstances, seeking compensation for the injuries. The appellant in MACA N o.1286/2011, who was the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.2609/2004 is the daughter of the appellant in MACA No.1287/2011, and the appellant in MACA No.1288/2011 is the wife of the appellant in MACA No.1287/2011. The bus was owned by the 1^st respondent and was insured with the 3^rd respondent/Insurance Company. The lorry was owned by the 4^th respondent and driven by the 5^th respondent. The said vehicle did not have any Insurance coverage. In the claim petition, the financier of the lorry was also impleaded.

¶57

The respondents 3 to 6 have filed written statements, and

¶58

the other respondents remained exparte. The 3^rd respondent/ Insurance Company admitted the coverage of the insurance policy in respect of the bus. However, they contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. According to them, since the lorry did not have insurance coverage, the claimants have colluded with the owner and driver of the lorry and

¶59

M.A.C.A. No.1286, 1287 & 1288 of 2011

¶60

: 6 :

¶61

a false claim was submitted. The 4^th and 5^th respondents contended that all of a sudden, the motorcycle entered into the road from a petrol pump by carrying excess passengers without taking into account the traffic and the bus, which was coming from behind. Thus, the bus hit on the motorcycle, and thereafter, it hit upon the lorry. Therefore, they denied the negligence on the part of the 3^rd respondent.

¶62

Since all the said claim petitions were arising from the very same accident, a joint trial was conducted. The evidence in these cases consists of oral evidence for PWs 1 to 3 and Exts.A1 to A16 from the side of the respective claimants. As Court Exhibits, Exts.X1 to X3 were marked.

¶63

After examining the materials placed on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus and also the driver of the lorry, and the liability was apportioned among them with a ratio of 70:30, respectively. However, the Tribunal also found that, as the rider of the motorcycle, the appellant in MACA No.1287/2011 rode the motorcycle with his wife and two children and, therefore was overloaded. Thus, it was found that, since the motorcycle was overloaded, it affected the

¶64

M.A.C.A. No.1286, 1287 & 1288 of 2011

¶65

: 7 :

¶66

control of the said vehicle, and the rider and the pillion rider also contributed to the accident and their contribution was found to be 10%. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.5,36,100/- in O.P.(M.V.) No.2612/2004, which is under challenge in MACA No.1287/2011, Rs.65,000/- in O.P.(M.V.) No.2609/2004, which is under challenge in MACA No.1286/2011 and Rs.82,149/- in O.P(M.V) No.2863/2004, which is under challenge in MACA No.1288/2011. Accordingly, respondents 1 to 5 were found jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, and as per the award, the claimants were allowed to recover the amount covered by the respective awards after deducting 10% in respect of the awards passed in O.P.(M.V.) Nos.2612/2004 and 2863/2004, with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of award and thereafter at 9% per annum till realisation and proportionate cost from respondents 1 to 5. These awards are challenged in these appeals.

¶67

Heard Smt. Manju.M., the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri.E.M. Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent/Insurance Company and Sri.N.Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent.

¶68

The first question to be considered is concerning the

¶69

M.A.C.A. No.1286, 1287 & 1288 of 2011 : 8 :

¶70

contributory negligence of 10% attributed to the appellants in MACA No.1287/2011 and MACA No.1288/2011, the rider and the pillion rider of the motorcycle. It is evident from the observations made by the Tribunal in the award that, even though after analysing the materials placed on record, a categorical finding was entered to the effect that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the lorry, the Tribunal again proceeded to determine the contribution made by the rider and pillion rider of the motorcycle, in causing the accident. From the materials placed on record, it is evident that the accident occurred when the motorcycle was hit from behind by the bus, and thereafter, when the rider lost control of the motorcycle, it was hit by the lorry, which was coming from the opposite side. Therefore, going through the manner in which the accident occurred, there is nothing to indicate any contribution from the part of the rider or pillion rider or, rather, the overloading on the motorcycle, in causing the accident. Evidently, one of the main contributory reasons for the accident was the failure on the part of the driver of the bus to maintain a safe distance between the vehicle, which was travelling on the front. Even, the 4^th and 5^th respondents have raised a contention that the motorcycle entered the road from a

¶71

M.A.C.A. No.1286, 1287 & 1288 of 2011 : 9 :

¶72

petrol pump all of a sudden and this caused the accident, there is not much evidence to substantiate the same. Moreover, in the crime registered in connection with the accident, the driver of the lorry was charge-sheeted.

¶73

Thus, after analysing the materials available on record and also considering the conclusion arrived at by the police, I am of the view that the finding attributing contributory negligence upon the rider and the pillion rider of the motorcycle was not at all warranted. Merely because of the reason that the vehicle was overloaded, the contributory negligence cannot be attributed automatically. There must be specific evidence indicating that the fact of overloading contributed to the accident. In this case, there is nothing to indicate such a contribution from the fact of overloading. It is also an aspect to be noticed in this regard that the excess passengers allegedly carried on the vehicle were two minor children. Thus, when all the aforesaid aspects are taken into consideration, I am of the view that, the finding of the Tribunal on the question of contributory negligence is liable to be set aside, and it is ordered accordingly.

¶74

The next question is relating to the quantum of compensation:

¶75

M.A.C.A. No.1286, 1287 & 1288 of 2011 : 10 :

¶76

MACA No.1287/2011 [O.P.(M.V.) No.2612/2004]

¶77

The petitioner, in this case, was working as a Grade-I Lineman in KSEB, and he was aged 37 at the time of the accident. The monthly salary of the petitioner was claimed to be Rs.7,523/-. One of the main disputes raised by the appellant in this case was relating to the medical expenses awarded. It was pointed out that as per Exts.A4 and A4(a), they have submitted bills for a total amount of Rs.7,12,828/-, after adjusting the payment vouchers, the actual amounts come to Rs.5,80,277/-. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that, despite the said amount being the exact figure, the Tribunal, while relying on Ext.A4(a), a communication issued by the Lakeshore Hospital, awarded only Rs.3,54,284/-. In Ext.A4(a) statement, it was mentioned by the hospital authorities that the total expenses incurred by the appellant for availing treatment during the period from 04.02.2004 to 15.03.2004 was Rs.3,54,284/- which was the amount arrived at after giving a concession for an amount of Rs.27,167/-.

¶78

According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the said payment was towards the bills produced as serial Nos.142 and 143 produced as per Annexure A4 series, and while fixing the

¶79

M.A.C.A. No.1286, 1287 & 1288 of 2011 : 11 :

¶80

amount, the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the other bills produced as Ext.A4 series.

¶81

I have carefully gone through the bills produced along with the same. It is seen from the said documents that most of the bills are not properly signed, and it is also a relevant factor that most of the said bills pertain to the period during which the appellant availed the treatment, which are specifically mentioned in Ext.A4(a) statement. Therefore, in all probabilities, the said bills were considered in Ext.A4(a), which is a consolidated statement of the medical expenses incurred by the appellant during the said period. Even though there are certain other bills pertaining to the period mentioned in Ext.A4(a), and also the bills issued by some private medical shops, in most of the bills, there is no proper authentication, and there is nothing to indicate the acknowledgment of the payment referred to in those bills. Therefore, after carefully scrutinising the bills produced as Exts.A4 and A4(a), I find that no interference is required in the observations/findings made by the tribunal in this regard.

¶82

Even though no disability certificate was produced, taking note of the serious injuries sustained by the petitioner and the impact

¶83

M.A.C.A. No.1286, 1287 & 1288 of 2011

¶84

: 12 :

¶85

of the same, the tribunal has taken 10% as the disability. Since there is no evidence indicating that, consequent to the injuries, the petitioner lost the job, a notional annual income of 36,000/- per annum was taken for the purpose of computing compensation for physical disability and loss of earning capacity. The multiplier applied was 8 and thus calculated an amount of 28,800/- as compensation under this head. After evaluating the materials indicating the nature of injuries sustained and possible physical incapacity and other consequences, I am of the view that a modification of the compensation under the said head is required. Firstly, the monthly income taken by the tribunal is `3,000/- which is on the lower side. Of course, it is true that, as the petitioner was a regular employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board, evidently, he continued in the said employment even after sustaining the injuries. Therefore, consequent to the injuries, he might not have suffered any loss of income during the period in which he would be in service. Since he was 37 years old at the relevant time, he was having almost 19 years of service remaining at the relevant time. However, considering the nature of injuries and the impact thereof, evidently, the loss of earning capacity has to be considered with respect to the period after his

¶86

M.A.C.A. No.1286, 1287 & 1288 of 2011 : 13 :

¶87

retirement. Since the tribunal has already fixed 10% as the possible physical disability, I deem it appropriate to accept the same. However, to determine the compensation under this head for the post-retirement period, which was to occur after 19 years of the accident, some modification in the monthly income is required, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to fix it as 4,000/-. Considering the age of the victim at the time of retirement, the multiplier of 9 is fixed. While reworking the compensation for disability with the above revised criteria, the amount of compensation would come to 43,200/- after deducting 28,800/-, the amount already awarded by the tribunal, and the additional amount would come to 14,400/-. Another ground which requires reconsideration is 4000/- granted by the tribunal under the heads of hospitalisation, damage to clothing and articles and transportation combined together. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that a further sum of 3,000/- is to be granted under these heads, and it is ordered accordingly. Considering the serious nature of injuries as evident from the records, I find that a further sum of `10,000/- is to be granted under the head of pain and suffering. Thus, the additional

¶88

M.A.C.A. No.1286, 1287 & 1288 of 2011 : 14 :

¶89

compensation is fixed as `27,400/-.

¶90

Since this Court has already found that the deduction ordered by the tribunal at the rate of 10% on the ground of contributory negligence was not legally sustainable, the appellant would be entitled to an amount of 53,610/-, consequent to the said finding. Accordingly, the amount additionally receivable by the appellant is fixed as 81,010/-.

¶91

MACA 1288/2011 [OP(MV) No.2863/2004]

¶92

The petitioner in this claim was the pillion rider against whom contributory negligence of 10% was also attributed. Consequent to the finding, this Court has already entered into, as referred to in the earlier part of this judgment, the appellant would be entitled to an additional amount of 8,240/-, on account of the setting aside of the finding of contributory negligence. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and their consequences, I am of the view that the revision is required under two heads, namely bystander expenses as well as the discomforts and inconvenience. It is discernible from the records that the petitioner had undergone inpatient treatment for 20 days. The tribunal has awarded an amount of 2,500/- under various heads such as hospitalisation, attendant

¶93

M.A.C.A. No.1286, 1287 & 1288 of 2011 : 15 :

¶94

expenses, extra nourishment and damage to clothing combined together. Considering the period of inpatient treatment and the nature of injuries sustained, I deem it appropriate to grant an amount of 4,000/- as the additional compensation under bystander expenses. Similarly, considering the nature of the injuries sustained, I also find that the appellant can be granted a further sum of 8,000/under the head of discomfort and inconvenience as the amount 12,000/- already awarded appears to be on the lower side. Thus, the additional compensation receivable by the appellant is fixed as 20,214/- (8214+8000+4000).

¶95

MACA 1286/2011 [OP(MV) 2609/2004]

¶96

The appellant in this case is a minor girl aged 5 years who sustained injuries in the accident. The tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs 65,000/-. In this case, the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant relates to the medical expenses. Ext.A11 series medical bills were produced, evidencing the treatment expenses as 81,129.39. Out of this amount, the tribunal found that 1926 are voucher amounts, serial No.22 was a receipt made towards the interim deposit, and Sl.No.23 contained no payment seal. Therefore, those bills were not accepted. Thereafter, the tribunal

¶97

M.A.C.A. No.1286, 1287 & 1288 of 2011 : 16 :

¶98

fixed the amount to be paid as medical expenses, as 21,000/-. I have carefully gone through the Ext.A11 series bills. It is discernible therefrom that, even if the bills produced as serial Nos.22 and 23 are excluded, the total amount covered by bills produced as serial Nos. 1 to 21 would come to 46,859.32. The tribunal has found that out of this 1926 are voucher amounts, which cannot be considered. Thus, even after deducting the voucher amount, the actual amount would come to 44,933. Since all the bills are found to be regular, and there is no reason to reject them, I deem it appropriate to fix the amount payable towards medical expenses to be 44,933/- in light of the reasons mentioned above. After deducing 21,000 already granted by the tribunal under this head, the additional amount is determined as 23,933/-. It was pointed out that the appellant was hospitalised for a period of 47 days at two spells. The amount awarded by the tribunal for hospitalisation was only 2500/- and as attendant expenses, 1500 was granted. Considering the fact that there were 47 days of inpatient treatment, the amount of attendant charges can be fixed as 5,000/-, thus resulting in an additional amount of 3500/under the said head. Similarly, no amount is seen awarded towards the extra nourishment. An amount of 2000/- is fixed under the said

¶99

M.A.C.A. No.1286, 1287 & 1288 of 2011

¶100

: 17 :

¶101

head. Considering the nature of the injuries, period of treatment and other relevant aspects, a further sum of 10,000/- is granted under the head of pain and suffering. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the injuries sustained resulted in scars on the face and leg of the appellant, and therefore, some amount is also to be granted for disfiguration. The records available on record would justify the award of some amount under the said head, and hence, I deem it appropriate to fix it as 5,000/-. Thus, the total additional compensation under this head is fixed as `44,433/- (23933 + 3500 + 2000 +10000 + 5000).

¶102

In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the following orders are passed:

¶103

(i) OP(MV) No.2612/2004 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Ernakulam is hereby modified by setting aside the finding of the tribunal attributing 10% of contributory negligence and also awarding an additional compensation of 27,400/- to the appellant. Consequently, the total additional amount receivable by the appellant in this case is fixed as 81,010/- and the said amount is directed to be

¶104

M.A.C.A. No.1286, 1287 & 1288 of 2011

¶105

: 18 :

¶106

deposited by respondents 1 to 5 with interest at the rate

¶107

as ordered by the tribunal, in the proportion determined by the Tribunal.

¶108

(ii) OP(MV)2863/2004 award dated 25.02.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam is modified by setting aside the finding of the tribunal attributing 10% of contributory negligence and also granting a further amount of 12,000/-. Thus, the total additional amount receivable by the appellant, by including the 10% of the amount awarded by the tribunal, would come to 20,214/- and the said amount is directed to be deposited by respondent Nos.1 to 5 with interest at the rate as ordered by the tribunal, in the proportion determined by Tribunal.

¶109

(iii) The award dated 25.02.2009 in OP(MV) No.2609/2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, is hereby modified by granting an additional compensation of `44,433/- and respondents 1 to 5

¶110

herein are directed to deposit the said amount along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date

¶111

M.A.C.A. No.1286, 1287 & 1288 of 2011

¶112

: 19 :

¶113

of petition till realisation, in the proportion determined by Tribunal..

¶114

However, it is clarified that since these appeals were filed with petitions to condone the delay of 643 days and the same was condoned subject to the condition that, in case any additional compensation is awarded, the respective appellants would not be entitled for interest for the said period, it shall be open for the respondents exclude the said period while computing the interest on the compensation. These appeals are disposed of as above.

¶115

Sd/ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶116

rpk/ncd

Rincia @ Rinciya Rahim,Rep.by Her Father v. Manoharan and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rincia @ Rinciya Rahim,Rep.by Her Father v. Manoharan and Others

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

Joby C.J. Vs the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd

Usha Saju Vs Ratheesh Joseph

Mohammedunni Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd

United India Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Shahir Mc and Ors.

Abdul Samad Vs State of Kerala

Saidu, Vs State of Kerala