Allowed

M.Mujeeb @ Mujeeb Rahman v. Sunilkumar

Kerala HC3 Mar 2023MACA/1970/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident appeal, the High Court Enhanced the Tribunal's award of compensation. The Court recalculated notional income based on a Supreme Court decision, adjusted for permanent visual disability, and increased compensation for loss of earnings, bystander expenses, nourishment, pain and suffering, and permanent disability.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,45,700/- awarded and directed to be deposited by the insurer with interest.

M.Mujeeb @ Mujeeb Rahman Vs Sunilkumar — 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

FRIDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO.1970 OF 2012

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 1483/2009 OF MOTOR

¶7

ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶9

M.MUJEEB @ MUJEEB RAHMAN

¶10

S/O MUHAMMED, MUNDAMBRA HOUSE, KARAPPURAM P.O, KALKKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92)

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 SUNILKUMAR

¶13

S/O PALNGUNNI, KANDALAPATTA HOUSE,PELAKKOD,AMBALAKUTH, KARULAI P.O, 679330, NILAMBUR VIA MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶14

2 K. SAIDALI S/O K. MOIDEENKUTTY KURIYADAN HOUSE, KARUYLAI P.O, NILAMBUR VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679330

¶15

3 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE, A.M. BUILDING, HOSPITAL ROAD, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679329 BY ADV SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.02.2023, THE COURT ON 03.03.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

MACA No.1970 of 2012

SOPHY THOMAS, J.

MACA No.1970 of 2012

Dated this the 3^rd day of March, 2023

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The claimant in OP(MV) No. 1483 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri is assailing the award of the Tribunal on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.

¶24

On 28.08.2002 at about 8 a.m, while the appellant was riding his motorcycle, KL-10M 9650 motorcycle ridden by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against his motorcycle and he was thrown down. He sustained abrasions on left leg and foot, abrasion on frontal area with edema of right optic nerve and traumatic optic neuropathy with loss of vision for right eye. He approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000. But, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.1,18,535/-. Hence this appeal.

¶25

1^st respondent was the rider, 2^nd respondent was the owner and 3^rd respondent was the insurer of the offending

¶26

MACA No.1970 of 2012

¶27

¶28

motorcycle. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. The 3^rd respondent/insurer admitted the incident and policy of the vehicle. But, according to them, the appellant was not having driving licence to ride the motorcycle and because of his rashness and negligence, the accident occurred.

¶29

No oral evidence was adduced from either side, and Exts.A1 to A8 series and Ext.X1 were marked before the Tribunal.

¶30

Heard Sri.P Venugopal, appearing for the appellant and Sri.K Sandesh Raja, appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶31

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

¶32

The appellant was 30 years old at the time of accident

¶33

and he was working as Salesman in a furniture shop in Saudi Arabia. Since there was no evidence to prove his job or income, the Tribunal fixed his notional income as Rs.2,500/-. As the accident was in the year 2002, even going by the decision Ramchandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited (AIR 2011 SC 2951),

¶34

he was eligible to get his notional income fixed @ Rs.3,500/-

¶35

MACA No.1970 of 2012

¶36

¶37

per month. He suffered injuries including visual disability of 30% with respect to his right eye. Considering that aspect, loss of earning for six months is to be calculated, taking his monthly income as Rs.3,500/-, which will come to Rs.21,000/-. Since he was already paid Rs.7,500/- under that head, he is eligible to get the balance Rs.13,500/-.

¶38

Towards bystander expenses, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.300/-, as the appellant was hospitalised for three days. Since he had suffered visual disability of 30%, he might have been under the care of a bystander even after discharge from hospital. So, this Court is inclined to award Rs.500/more under the head 'bystander expenses'.

¶39

Towards extra nourishment, nothing was awarded by

¶40

the Tribunal. Considering the nature of injuries and disability suffered, this Court is inclined to award Rs.2,500/- under the head 'extra nourishment'.

¶41

Towards pain and suffering, only Rs.5,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. This Court is inclined to award Rs.5,000/- more under the head 'pain and suffering'.

¶42

Towards permanent disability and loss of amenity

¶43

MACA No.1970 of 2012

¶44

¶45

together, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1 lakh. Ext.X1, report of the District Medical Board, Govt. General Hospital, Manjeri, shows that he had suffered visual disability of 30% for his right eye. We cannot say that by that disability, the appellant is not able to do any job. Learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent/insurer contended that, the visual disability of 30% for right eye cannot be taken as whole body disability which may be less than 30%. But, the insurer did not file any appeal against the award of the Tribunal accepting his permanent disability as 30%. So, that finding need not be disturbed. Taking his monthly income as Rs.3,500/-, and multiplier as 17, as he was aged 30, the compensation for permanent disability can be assessed as Rs.2,14,200/- (3500x12x17x30/100). Since he was already paid Rs.1 lakh, he is entitled to get the balance Rs.1,14,200/- under the head 'permanent disability'.

¶46

Towards loss of amenities, this Court is inclined to award Rs.10,000/- as he was a 30 year old man who suffered visual disability of 30% for his right eye.

¶47

The compensation awarded under all other heads seems to be just and proper and it needs no interference.

¶48

MACA No.1970 of 2012

¶49

¶50

Head of claim	Amount awarded by the Tribunal	Amount awarded in appeal	Difference to be drawn as enhanced compensation
Loss of earning	Rs.7,500/-	Rs.21,000/-	Rs.13,500/-
Bystander expenses	Rs.300/-	Rs.800/-	Rs.500/-
Extra nourishment	-	Rs.2,500/-	Rs.2,500/-
Pain and suffering	Rs.5,000/-	Rs.10,000/-	Rs.5,000/-
Compensation for permanent disability	Rs.1,00,000/-	Rs.2,14,200/-	Rs.1,14,200/-
Loss of amenities		Rs.10,000/-	Rs.10,000/-
Total	Rs.1,12,800/-	Rs.2,58,500/-	Rs.1,45,700/-

¶51

In the result, the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.1,45,700/- (13500+500+2500+ 5000+114200+10000).

¶52

The 3^rd respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation in the Bank Account of the appellant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit 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

¶53

MACA No.1970 of 2012

¶54

¶55

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.

¶56

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

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE

¶59

smp

M.Mujeeb @ Mujeeb Rahman v. Sunilkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Mujeeb @ Mujeeb Rahman v. Sunilkumar

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

Sumesh Vs Hyderali

Anil G.P. Vs Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co.

Francis, S/O.Pappy Vs Shinoj

N.M. Mathukutty Vs Suresh.K.K

Vargese Vs the Branch Manager

Narayanan Vs Purushu