Allowed

Vinodini v. the New India Assurance Company Limited

Kerala HC10 Nov 2023MACA/2396/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Motor Accident Claims Appeal and enhanced compensation. The Court applied Ramachandrappa v Sundaram Alliance to fix monthly income at ₹12,000. It increased the loss of earning period to three months and awarded additional amounts for transportation, extra nourishment, bystander expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, totaling ₹36,500 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Awarded additional compensation of ₹36,500 with interest at 7.5% per annum to be paid within two months.

Vinodini Vs the New India Assurance Company Limited — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶5

MACA NO. 2396 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 11.03.2022 IN O.P(M.V) NO.1305/2019 OF
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

VINODINI, W/O. BABU,
AGED 58 YEARS, DEVASWAM VAYAL, P.O. VENGERI,
KOZHIKODE DIST- 673 010 (NOW RESIDING AT K.C. NIVAS,
P.O., VENGERI, KOZHIKODE DIST- 673 010)
BY ADVS.SRI.AVM.SALAHUDDEEN
 SMT.A.D.DIVYA

¶9

RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶10

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE, DOOR NO. 5/86-P, 2ND FLOOR,
FAIR MONT BUILDING, ERANHIPALAM, WAYANAD ROAD,
KOZHIKODE - 673006, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER.
BY ADVS. SRI.PREMCHAND M.
 SRI.LAL K JOSEPH -SC

¶11

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 10.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶12

M.A.C.A.No.2396 of 2022

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Dated this the 10^th day of November, 2023

¶16

The appeal on hand is originated from an award passed by Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on 11.03.2022 in O.P.(M.V) No.1305/2019. The appellant is the petitioner before the Tribunal and she seeks for modification of the compensation stood awarded by the Tribunal.

¶17

For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2 in accordance with their status in the Original Petition.

¶18

The motor accident in the case on hand was occurred on 06.04.2019 at 5.30 p.m at Kulangara. Petitioner was walking through the road and a Scooter bearing Registration No.KL-76/2770 knocked her down and thereby she sustained injuries. She was taken to

¶19

M.A.C.A.No.2396 of 2022

¶20

¶21

Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode for treatment. She had sustained fracture distal end of radius and some soft tissue injuries in the motor accident. The injuries sustained were established from Ext.A2, the accident register cum wound certificate produced by the petitioner. As per Ext.A4, the discharge card, petitioner was admitted at the hospital for two days and thereafter had taken rest at her house. Apart from Exts.A2 and A4 no other documents are forthcoming in evidence from the side of the petitioner.

¶22

Petitioner claimed to be a coolie worker at the relevant time when she met with the motor accident, earning ₹15,000/- as monthly income. The Tribunal fixed ₹9,500/- notionally as her monthly income. It is contended by the learned counsel that the said amount is too low and therefore a modification in accordance with the fixation of the monthly income in the case of a Coolie worker in Ramachandrappa v Manager, Royal

¶23

M.A.C.A.No.2396 of 2022

¶24

¶25

Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited

¶26

[ (2011) 13 SCC 236] is required. The learned counsel has also contended that loss of earning was calculated by the Tribunal by taking two months as the period and therefore is unjustified. According to him, compensation stood awarded by the Tribunal under various other heads are also inadequate and disproportionate.

¶27

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent has contended on the contrary that the compensation stood awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and interference sought for is unwarranted.

¶28

It is found from the Original petition that the petitioner claimed to be a coolie worker getting ₹15,000/as monthly income, but she failed to adduce any evidence to establish those. In that context that the Tribunal fixed the monthly income as ₹9,500/- on a notional basis and calculated compensation for loss of earning for two months.

¶29

M.A.C.A.No.2396 of 2022

¶30

¶31

This Court finds it reasonable to fix the monthly income proportionate to the fixation in Ramachandrappa supra and refixed it as ₹12,000/-.

¶32

When viewed in the light of the injuries sustained, consideration of three months’ period is found reasonable for calculation of compensation for loss of earning and thus ₹36,000/- (₹12,000/- x 3) is arrived at. ₹19,000/- stood awarded by the Tribunal when adjusted against, the petitioner will get ₹17,000/- (₹36,000/- - ₹19,000/-) as additional compensation under that head.

¶33

This Court also finds that the compensation stood awarded by the Tribunal towards transportation expenses, extra nourishment, bystander expenses, pain and sufferings and loss of amenities and enjoyments in life are also inadequate. Therefore, ₹1,000/-, ₹1,500/₹2,000/-, ₹5,000/- and ₹10,000/- respectively are awarded as additional compensation under those heads.

¶34

M.A.C.A.No.2396 of 2022

¶35

¶36

When compensation is calculated afresh in the

¶37

above manner, petitioner will get ₹36,500/- (₹17,000/- + ₹1,000/- + ₹1,500/- + ₹2,000/- + ₹5,000/- + ₹10,000/-) (Rupees thirty six thousand and five hundred only) as additional compensation which will also carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Petition till the date of realisation, excluding 21 days, the period of delay occurred in filing the appeal on hand. 2^nd respondent shall pay the above sum with interest fixed on it within a period of two months from the date on which a certified copy of this judgment is received. The disbursal of the amount shall be in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Circular No.03/2019 dated 06.09.2019.

¶38

M.A.C.A is allowed accordingly.

¶39

Sd/- MARY JOSEPH JUDGE

¶40

NAB

Vinodini v. the New India Assurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinodini v. the New India Assurance Company Limited

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

Vinod Vs The Managing Director

Baiju Sunil M. Vs New India Assurance Company Limited

Layon Thomas Kumar Vs Mariyam Sayonara

Jelbin Joseph Vs the Divisional Managaer

Oriental Insurance Company Vs Shareefa P

The Divisional Manager Vs Rinju K. Raju