Allowed

Vishnu v. the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd, Kollam

Kerala HC9 Feb 2023MACA/1789/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the motor accident claims appeal against the Tribunal's award, holding that the compensation for an 8% disabled child must be Rs. 1,00,000/- as per the Master Mallikarjun standard, revising the permanent disability head, while leaving other heads unaltered.

What did the court decide?

Revised compensation for permanent disability to Rs. 1,00,000/- from Rs. 21,600/-; all other heads remain unaltered.

Vishnu Vs the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd… — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 20TH MAGHA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 1789 OF 2012

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1308/2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

¶7

,KOLLAM

¶8

APPELLANT/2ND PETITIONER:

¶9

VISHNU

¶10

S/O. MADHUSOODHANAN PILLAI, JAYASREE MANDIRAM, PAMPURAM,
PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM.

¶11

BY ADV SRI.PRATHEESH.P

¶12

RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶13

1THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD,
KOLLAM- 691001.

¶14

2*ADDITIONAL R2
PRIJI, PRANAVU NIVAS, ALUMMOODU, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691
506.
(ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 09.02.2023 IN I.A.NO. IN MACA NO.1789/2012)

¶15

BY ADV SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

MACA NO. 1789 OF 2012

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The appellant impugns the Award of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam
(“Tribunal” for short), asserting that the

¶21

compensation awarded under it is exiguous.

¶22

2.Smt.Gopika.T.C – learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, vehemently argued
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under various heads, particularly for
permanent disability of her client is so
inadequate that it defies logic and reason.
She relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble

¶23

Supreme Court inMaster Mallikarjun v.

¶24

Divisional Manager, the National Insurance
Company Limited and Another [(2014) 14 SCC

¶25

MACA NO. 1789 OF 2012

¶26

¶27

396], to argue that it has been now well

¶28

established that, in the case of an injury to
a child with less than 8% disability, the
standard compensation to be adopted in the
year 2014 was Rs.1,00,000/-. She argued that,
therefore, going by the rates of inflation and
the reduction of value of money, the Tribunal
ought to have granted at least Rs.1.5 lakhs in

¶29

compensation under the said Head. She also
argued that the compensation under the head
“Loss of Amenities” is exiguous, since the
Tribunal granted only Rs.5,000/-.

¶30

3.Smt.Raji T.Bhaskar – learned Standing
Counsel for the Insurance Company, conceded
that, at the time of accident, the claimant -

¶31

child was only 13 years in age and that the

¶32

MACA NO. 1789 OF 2012

¶33

¶34

records reveal that he had suffered 8%
disability. She argued that, however, the
Tribunal was without error in having taken his
annual income as Rs.15,000/-, since this is
the standard fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in various proceedings.

¶35

4.The records reveal that even though

¶36

notice to the 2ndrespondent has been
completed by various methods, including paper
publication, he has chosen not to be present
in person or to be represented through
counsel.

¶37

with the afore submissions of Smt.Raji

¶38

T.Bhaskar because, inMaster Mallikarjun
(supra),as rightly argued by Smt.Gopika.T.C,

¶39

MACA NO. 1789 OF 2012

¶40

¶41

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has fixed

¶42

Rs.1,00,000/- being the compensation eligible

¶43

to a child who has suffered less than 10%
disability. In the case at hand, the 2nd
appellant – the victim, has admittedly
suffered 8% disability; and obviously, said
sum ought to have been adopted by the
Tribunal, rather than having taken a notional

¶44

income, as has been done. As far as the “Loss
of Amenities” is concerned, since this Court
proposes to revise the compensation for
permanent Disability on the afore lines, a

¶45

further enhancement may not be necessary.

¶46

In the afore circumstances, I allow this

¶47

appeal and revise the compensation for
continuing or permanent disability in favour

¶48

MACA NO. 1789 OF 2012

¶49

¶50

of the 2nd appellant to be Rs.1,00,000/- from

¶51

Rs.21,600/- followingMaster Mallikarjun
(supra).

¶52

In all other heads, the amounts granted by

¶53

the Tribunal will remain unaltered.

¶54

Needless to say, the appellant will be at
liberty to recover the compensation, as
enhanced by this Court, from the Insurance
Company, along with interest at the rate of

¶55

7.5% as has been fixed by the Tribunal from

¶56

the date of filing of claim until it is

¶57

realised. The appellant will also be entitled to
proportional cost, on the enhanced amounts, as
ordered by the Tribunal.

¶58

It goes without saying that the liberty of

¶59

the Tribunal to pay the amount to the

¶60

MACA NO. 1789 OF 2012

¶61

¶62

appellant and to recover it from the 2nd
respondent is left in tact.

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶65

JUDGE

¶66

SAS

Vishnu v. the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd, Kollam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu v. the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd, Kollam

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

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Musthafa

Jacob Poulose, Vs Biju Prabhakar

P v Sunny, Vs Biju Prabhakar

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs Anitha

Michael Sebasitan @ Santhosh Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

Michael Sebastian @ Santhosh, Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd.