Allowed

Rajagopalan v. Sasidharan

Kerala HC5 Dec 2023MACA/283/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Motor Accident Claims Appeal, the High Court of Kerala modified the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirur. The court allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation by revising the monthly income and awarding additional sums for other heads of loss.

What did the court decide?

Award of a further sum of Rs.48,080/ as additional compensation to be deposited by the Insurance Company along with interest and costs.

Rajagopalan Vs Sasidharan — 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

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

MACA NO. 283 OF 2012

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 11.05.2011 IN OP(MV)82/2009 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

RAJAGOPALAN

¶9

S/O.SIVARAMAN NAIR, KANNASSSAN VEETIL, NANNAMUKKU,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1SASIDHARAN
S/O.DAMU, THAZHATHETHIL HOUSE, KANAKUNNU,
THALASSERY P.O., PIN 670003

¶13

2 O.RAJAN S/O.KRISHNAN, GEETHANIVAS, P.O.VENGAD, ANJARAKANDY, KANNUR, PIN 670009

¶14

3THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
P.B.NO.63, UNITY COMPLEX, SN PARK ROAD,
KANNOR-670 001.

¶15

BY ADV

¶16

ADV THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL -R3

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

MACA NO. 283 OF 2012

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The appellant is the petitioner in O.P. (M.V.) No.82/2009 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Tirur. The said claim petition was submitted by him seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident that occurred on 23.12.2006.

¶22

According to him, the accident occurred when he was travelling in a bus from Kottakkal to Edappal, it hit against a lorry and he sustained serious injuries. The said bus was being driven by the 1st respondent at the time of the accident. The 2nd respondent was its owner and was insured with the 3rd respondent. According to appellant, he was 55 years old at the time of the accident and he was a contract employee with B.S.N.L. with a monthly income of Rs.6,500/-. He sustained serious injuries, which resulted in physical disablement as well. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances.

¶23

The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company alone

¶24

MACA NO. 283 OF 2012

¶25

3

¶26

disputed the said claim petition by filing a written statement. They admitted the coverage of the policy in respect of the said vehicle, but, they disputed the negligence and quantum of compensation.

¶27

The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A8 from the side of the appellant and from the side of the respondent, Ext.B1 were marked. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and being the insurer of the said bus, the 3rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.91,300/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited by the 3rd respondent with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation with cost of Rs.3,000/-. This appeal is submitted in such circumstances seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶28

Heard Sri.C.M.Mohammed Iquabal, learned

¶29

counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Thomas Mathew

¶30

¶31

MACA NO. 283 OF 2012

¶32

Nellimoottil, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent Insurance Company.

¶33

The only dispute in this appeal relates to the quantum of compensation. It was pointed out that, the amounts awarded under various heads are on the lower side. After perusing the records, I find some force in the said contention. The first aspect to be noticed is the monthly income taken by the Tribunal, which was Rs.3,300/- even though a claim in this regard was Rs.6,500/-. The appellant claimed to be a contract employee with B.S.N.L. with monthly income of Rs.6,500/-, but no evidence was adduced to substantiate the same. However, when the method of computation evolved from the principles laid down in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236], and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company

¶34

[(2014) 2 SCC 735] is taken into consideration, the monthly

¶35

MACA NO. 283 OF 2012

¶36

5

¶37

income, in this case, can be reasonably fixed as Rs.5,500/even in the absence of any evidence, as the accident occurred in the year, 2006. The other parameters adopted by the Tribunal for assessing the compensation for disability appears to be reasonable. Of course, it is true that the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the multiplier to be applied should have been 11 instead of 9, but I am not inclined to accept the said contention as there is nothing on record to show the exact age of the appellant. In the claim petition, the same was shown as 55 years and in the absence of any evidence I do not find any justification in adopting the multiplier of 9, which is applicable to the age group of 55 to 60.

¶38

Thus, while reassessing the compensation with the revised monthly income and keeping the other parameters intact, the amount of compensation would come to Rs.29,700/- (5,500 x 12 x 9 x 5/100). The amount already awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.17,820/- and thus, the

¶39

MACA NO. 283 OF 2012

¶40

6

¶41

additional compensation would come to Rs.11,880/-.

¶42

Consequent to the revision of monthly income, the

¶43

appellant would be entitled for a further amount under the head of loss of earnings. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under the said head for a period of six months. Thus, the additional compensation in this head would come to Rs.13,200/- [(5,500 x 6) – 19,800]. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering was Rs.12,000/-. It is discernible from the records that, he sustained serious injuries and it resulted in permanent partial disability of 5%. He had undergone inpatient treatment for 16 days as well. In such circumstances, I am of the view that, a further sum of Rs.8,000/- can be granted under the head of pain and suffering. No amount is seen granted towards loss of amenities. Taking note of the physical disability suffered by the appellant and other difficulties that may arise from the same, I deem it appropriate to grant an amount of Rs.15,000/under the said head.

¶44

MACA NO. 283 OF 2012

¶45

7

¶46

Thus, the total additional compensation is determined as Rs.48,080/- (Rupees forty eight thousand and eighty only) (11,880 + 13,200 + 8,000 + 15,000).

¶47

In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings this appeal is allowed. The award dated 11.05.2011 in O.P. (M.V.) No.82/2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirur is hereby modified by awarding a further sum of Rs.48,080/- (Rupees forty eight thousand and eighty only) as compensation to the appellant which shall be deposited by

¶48

the 3^rd respondent/Insurance Company with interest at the rate as ordered by the Tribunal and proportionate cost, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶49

Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE

¶50

scs

Rajagopalan v. Sasidharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajagopalan v. Sasidharan

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

Mathew S/O.Joseph Vs Ali Kunju

Rethnamma Vasudevan Vs Abdul Salam

Sandeep Vs Binumon

Kunjila Vs Mary

Jiji Mathew Vs K.S.Babu

P.S.Gireesh Kumar Vs the Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C. Thiruvananthapuram