Allowed

Konappilakkal Vadakkethalakkal Abdurahim v. Palakkal Abdul Hameed @ Abdul Majeed

Kerala HC7 Jun 2023MACA/1749/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an appeal against an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, enhancing the compensation awarded to the deceased claimant's legal heirs by Rs.72,000 across various heads like loss of earning, pain, and amenities.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.72,000 along with interest directed to be deposited by the insurer to the legal heirs in specific ratios.

Konappilakkal Vadakkethalakkal Abdurahim Vs Palakkal Abdul Hameed @… — Insurance | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THEHONOURABLEMRS.JUSTICESOPHYTHOMAS

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE7THDAYOFJUNE2023/17THJYAISHTA,1945

¶4

MACANO.1749OF2011

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 1518/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI

¶6

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 KONAPILAKKAL VADAKKETHALAKKAL ABDURAHIMAN,, S/O. MAMMADU HAJI,, IRUMBUZHI AMSOM, IRUMBUZHI DESOM,, P.O.IRUMBUZHI. (DIED)

¶8

ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS IMPLEADED:

¶9

2 JAMEELA, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O. LATE ABDU RAHMAN, 4/70, KONAPPILLAKKAL, VADAKKETHALAKKAL, IRUMBUZHI PO, MALAPPURAM - 676 513.

¶10

3 SAKEENA, AGED 46 YEARS, D/O. ABDU RAHMAN, 4/70, KONAPPILAKKAL, VADAKKETHALAKKAL, IRUMBUZHI PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 513.

¶11

4 SAJIDA, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. ABOOBACKER, 260, THARAKAN, ANAKKOTTUPURAM, THRIKKALANGODE PANCHAYAT, MANJERI DISTRICT - 676 122.

¶12

AREIMPLEADEDASADDITIONALAPPELLANTS2TO4
ASPERORDERDATED31/3/2023INIA1/2023IN
MACA1749/2011

¶13

BYADVS.
P.M.RAFIQ
P.S.AZEEM

¶14

MACA No.1749 of 2011

¶15

¶16

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶17

1 PALAKKAL ABDUL HAMEED @ ABDUL MAJEED S/O.HYDRU,, MOOCHIKKAL HOUSE, EDAVANNA AMSOM, PATHAPIRIYAM,, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (DRIVER) - 676 123.

¶18

2 V.P. ISMAIL SO.AYSHAKUTTY VALIYAPEEDIAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.PATHAPIRIYAM, (VIA) MANJERI,, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (OWNER) - 676 121.

¶19

3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. NILAMBUR ROAD, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (INSURER) - 676 121.

¶20

BYADVS.
P.JACOBMATHEW
MATHEWSJACOB(SR.)

¶21

THISMOTORACCIDENTCLAIMSAPPEALHAVINGBEENFINALLY
HEARDON31.05.2023,THECOURTON07.06.2023DELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

MACA No.1749 of 2011

SOPHY THOMAS, J.

MACA No.1749 of 2011

¶26

Dated this the 7^th day of June, 2023

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The claimant in OP (MV) No.1518 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri filed the above MACA challenging the impugned award, on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.

¶29

On 10.01.2005, while the appellant was standing by the

¶30

side of Manjeri-Malappuram road at Irumbuzhi, he was knocked down by KL 10B 3601 jeep owned by R2, driven by R1 and insured with R3. He sustained serious injuries and he was admitted in hospital for about 200 days in total in different spells. He approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.6,50,000/-. But, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.3,23,121/-. Aggrieved by the Award, he filed the above MACA.

¶31

R1 driver and R2 owner of the jeep remained ex parte throughout. The 3^rd respondent/insurer admitted the policy but, according to them, the 1^st respondent/driver was not having

¶32

MACA No.1749 of 2011

¶33

¶34

driving licence to drive the jeep, and since there was violation of the policy conditions, they are not liable to indemnify the insured.

¶35

No oral evidence was adduced from the side of the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal. RWs 1 to 3 were examined from the side of the 3^rd respondent. Exts.A1 to A10 series, B1, B2, X1 and X2 were marked.

¶36

Pending appeal, the appellant died. His legal heirs were impleaded as additional respondents 2 to 4.

¶37

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

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned

¶39

counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶40

According to the appellants, the injured/claimant was hospitalised for 200 days in total, and huge amount was expended for his treatment. He suffered much pain and agony due to the injuries suffered. He had to attend hospital for over 50 reviews. He had undergone surgeries one after another, and he suffered disability also, which reduced his earning capacity considerably. For all these facts, the amount awarded by the

¶41

MACA No.1749 of 2011

¶42

¶43

Tribunal is too meager.

¶44

According to the original claimant/injured, he was a 59 year old salesman earning monthly income of Rs.3,000/-. Learned Tribunal accepted and fixed his monthly income @ Rs.3,000/- itself and so, no interference is warranted in that regard.

¶45

The disability assessed and certified by the Medical Board as 20%, vide Ext.X1 report was also accepted by the Tribunal, and so, it needs no interference.

¶46

Towards medical and miscellaneous expenses, the claim was for Rs.3,20,000/-. But, Ext.A9 series medical bills were for Rs.1,79,071/- only, and that was awarded by the Tribunal. So, that also needs no change.

¶47

Now coming to the compensation awarded under the head ‘loss of earning’, the Tribunal took six months period as total loss of earning, and another six months as partial loss of earning. The wound certificate and the discharge summaries produced by the original claimant are sufficient to show that, he was hospitalised for about 200 days in total, and he had undergone

¶48

MACA No.1749 of 2011

¶49

¶50

several surgical procedures. That be the case, it was not possible for him to earn his livelihood even partially, after six months. The learned Tribunal ought to have assessed total loss of earning for the entire 12 months. So, the claimant was entitled to get Rs.36,000/- under the head ‘loss of earning’ @ Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal already awarded Rs.27,000/- and so, the legal heirs of the deceased claimant are entitled to get the balance amount Rs.9,000/- under the head ‘loss of earning’.

¶51

Towards bystander expenses, the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/for 200 days of hospitalisation. The accident occurred in the year 2005. Even after discharge from hospital, he might have been in need of a bystander, as the injuries suffered were so severe, and there was disability also to the extent of 20%. Considering that fact, this Court is inclined to award Rs.10,000/- more towards bystander expenses.

¶52

Towards transportation expenses, though the claim was for Rs.20,000/-, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.5,000/-. Admittedly, the injured was taken for review for more than 50 times and there was hospitalisation in different spells for over 200

¶53

MACA No.1749 of 2011

¶54

¶55

days. Considering these facts, this Cout is inclined to award Rs.5,000/- more towards transportation expenses.

¶56

Towards extra nourishment, only Rs.2,000/was awarded against his claim for Rs.20,000/-. Since the hosptialisation itself extended to 200 days, that amount is too meager and this Court is inclined to award Rs.8,000/- more towards extra nourishment.

¶57

Towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/-. The claimant had suffered compound fracture of lower third of left femur, undisplaced fracture of trochanter of right femur, fracture of left wrist and some other injuries. He was hospitalised for 200 days and underwent several surgical procedures. He had suffered disability of 20% also. So, this Court is inclined to award Rs.20,000/- more towards pain and suffering of the injured claimant.

¶58

Towards loss of amenities, no amount was awarded by the Tribunal. It is true that the original claimant died in the year 2014. The accident was in the year 2005. So, for about nine years, he was pulling on with the loss of amenities he had

¶59

MACA No.1749 of 2011

¶60

¶61

suffered out of the accident. Considering that fact, this Court is

¶62

inclined to award Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities.

¶63

The compensation awarded under all other heads seem

¶64

to be just and proper and it need not be interfered with.

¶65

Head of claim (1)	Amount awarded by the Tribunal (2)	Amount awarded in appeal (3)	Difference to be drawn as enhanced compensation (4)
Loss of earning	Rs.27,000/-	Rs.36,000/-	Rs.9,000/-
Bystander expenses	Rs.20,000/-	Rs.30,000/-	Rs.10,000/-
Transportation expenses	Rs.5,000/-	Rs.10,000/-	Rs.5,000/-
Extra nourishment	Rs.2,000/-	Rs.10,000/-	Rs.8,000/-
Pain and suffering	Rs.25,000/-	Rs.45,000/-	Rs.20,000/-
Loss of amenities	-	Rs.20,000/-	Rs.20,000/-
Total	Rs.79,000/-	Rs.1,51,000/-	Rs.72,000/-

¶66

In the result, the appeal is allowed, awarding enhanced compensation of Rs.72,000/(9000+10000+5000+8000+ 20000+20000).

¶67

The 3^rd respondent/insurer is admitting the policy of the offending vehicle, but, according to them, the 1^st respondent/ driver had no valid driving licence. The 2^nd respondent/owner

¶68

MACA No.1749 of 2011

¶69

¶70

permitted the 1^st respondent/driver to drive the jeep without having valid driving licence. Ext.B2 final report also shows that the 1^st respondent had no driving licence at the time of accident. Since there was violation of the policy conditions, the learned Tribunal directed the 3^rd respondent/Insurance Company to compensate the injured initially and then to reimburse the same from the 2^nd respondent/owner. That finding is not under challenge by the 2^nd respondent.

¶71

In the result, the 3^rd respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.72,000/(Rupees seventy two thousand only) in the Bank Account of additional appellants 2 to 4 in the ratio 60:20:20 with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit (excluding 45 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 appellants towards Tax, balance court fee

¶72

MACA No.1749 of 2011

¶73

¶74

and legal benefit fund. The 3^rd respondent is at liberty to recover

¶75

the amount so deposited from the 2^nd respondent and his assets.

¶76

The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶77

Sd/-

¶78

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE

¶79

smp

Konappilakkal Vadakkethalakkal Abdurahim v. Palakkal Abdul Hameed @ Abdul Majeed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Konappilakkal Vadakkethalakkal Abdurahim v. Palakkal Abdul Hameed @ Abdul Majeed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thomas J.Unniyadan Vs R.Bindu

Bindhu J. Vs K.Preetha

Badharudheen & Anr. Vs Deepu K. Mathew & Ors.

K.C.Narayanan Vs Rias Ashraf Sulfikkar & Others

Vineesh,S/O.Bhaskaran Vs Savithry & 4 Others

P.R.Reghunandan Vs Fr.Jacob John and Another