Allowed

Prasad K.K. v. Geetha Krishnan(Deleted)

Kerala HC25 Jan 2023MACA/3227/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award for permanent disability and other heads of compensation. The High Court, acknowledging the appellant's failure to prove higher income, enhanced the monthly income from Rs.5,000 to Rs.6,000, corrected the multiplier from five to seven based on age, and increased the pain and suffering component from Rs.50,000 to Rs.1,25,000.

What did the court decide?

Award enhanced under Permanent Disability, Loss of Earnings, and Pain and Suffering heads.

Prasad K.K. Vs Geetha Krishnan(Deleted) — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 5TH MAGHA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 3227 OF 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 28.12.2011 IN OPMV 285/2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 PRASAD K.K. AGED 71 YEARS S/O.KESAVAN, RESHMI, CHENNAMPALLY,AMMAKANDAKARA, PERINGANADU, ADOOR.

¶9

2 PRABHAKUMARI

¶10

W/O.PRASAD, RESHMI, CHENNAMPALLY, AMMAKANDAKARA,PERINGANADU, ADOOR.

¶11

BY ADVS. MANOJ RAMASWAMY SANJANA R.NAIR

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 GEETHA KRISHNAN(DELETED) W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, R.G.HOUSE, CHIRAKKARA,KALLUVATHUCKAL, KOLLAM - 691 003.

¶14

2 G.RADHAKRISHNAN(DELETED) R.G.HOUSE, CHIRAKKARA, KALLUVATHUCKAL,KOLLAM - 03.

¶15

3 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED KOLLAM-01.(RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 6/1/2023 IN MACA 3227/2015)

¶16

BY ADV P.G.GANAPPAN

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

MACA NO. 3227 OF 2015

¶19

¶20

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶21

M.A.C.A No.3227 of 2015

¶22

Dated this the 25^th day of January, 2023

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The 1^st appellant – who is represented by his wife, the 2^nd appellant - met with an accident on 06.12.2003 and that at that time, he was engaged in 'Civil Supervisor Works'. He says that, as a result of the accident caused by the offending vehicle, he suffered grievous injuries, requiring hospitalisation for sixteen days and that he lost voice for a long period of time. He says that he was diagnosed, as evident from Ext.A6 Discharge Certificate, with a severe head injury and fracture of left clavicle, which is also confirmed by Ext.A7 Treatment Certificate issued by the Century Hospital, Mulakuzha.

¶25

The appellants allege that, however, in spite of all

¶26

these, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) has awarded only an amount of Rs.3,60,360/-, instead of Rs.14,00,000/- claim made by them; and that this is primarily

¶27

because the income of the first among them has been incorrectly assessed to be only Rs.5,000/- notionally, against Rs.20,000/- claimed by him. They also assert that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal, while assessing

¶28

¶29

MACA NO. 3227 OF 2015

¶30

permanent disability, was wrong because, going by the binding precedents of the Honourable Supreme Court, since the 1^st appellant was 61 years of age at the time of the accident, the multiplier ought to have been seven and not five, as has been adopted. The appellants thus prays that Award of the Tribunal be enhanced as prayed for.

¶31

The afore submissions of the appellants, as made

¶32

by Sri.Manoj Ramaswamy - learned counsel for the appellants were answered by Sri.P.G.Gannappan – learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, saying that, though the 1^st appellant had claimed that he was drawing Rs.20,000/- as salary at the relevant time, he had produced no document or evidence in substantiation. He further argued that, since the 1^st appellant was a retired person, it was impossible that he could have earned Rs.20,000/-; and that if he had any contra-assertion, he ought to have proved it through reliable evidence, which he did not do. He, however, conceded very fairly that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal was wrong and that it ought to have been seven, instead of five, as has been presently done.

¶33

When I assess and evaluate the afore submissions

¶34

on the touch stone of the orders and holdings of the Tribunal,

¶35

MACA NO. 3227 OF 2015

¶36

¶37

it is evident that permanent disability of the 1^st appellant has been assessed to an amount of Rs.60,000/-, taking his annual income to be only Rs.5,000/- per annum. Further the multiplier adopted is also wrong.

¶38

Added to the afore, against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/- towards “Pain and Suffering”, the Tribunal has only granted Rs.50,000/-, but without assigning the reason for the same; while the “Loss of Earnings” has been assessed at Rs.6,000/-, again taking the income as being Rs.5,000/per month.

¶39

Though I am in affirmation with the findings of the Tribunal, in the absence of any evidence being led, the 1^st appellant could not have claimed Rs.20,000/- as his income, fixing of Rs.5,000/- in such regard is very exiguous. In fact, to a pointed question from this Court Sri.P.G.Gannappan – learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, submitted that his client will not stand in the way of a small enhancement being made, but not more than Rs.1,000/- per month.

¶40

As I have already said above, the 1^st appellant has

¶41

failed to prove his income cogently, particularly because he is a retired person; and hence, the best this Court can do is to

¶42

¶43

MACA NO. 3227 OF 2015

¶44

grant him the benefit as afore suggested by Sri.P.G.Ganappan, thus fixing the monthly income to be Rs.6,000/-, rather than Rs.5,000/-. In addition, when the multiplier is altered as being seven, instead of five, as adopted by the Tribunal, the figures arrived by it will also change.

¶45

That being said, the grant of Rs.50,000/- alone towards “Pain and Suffering” does not appear to be proper because, the injuries sustained by the appellant are certainly very grievous, as evident from Ext.A9 - MRI Brain Impression, as also Exts.A7 - Treatment Certificate and A6 - Discharge Certificate issued by the Century Hospital, Mulakuzha. He had suffered lacerated wound scalp over the forehead, severe head injury and left clavicle fracture; and I am, therefore, of the view that the amount now fixed by the Tribunal towards “Pain and Suffering” is inadequate. I propose to revise the said amount at Rs.1,25,000/-.

¶46

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the amounts under the heads “Loss of Earnings” to Rs.72,000/- instead of Rs.60,000/-; towards “Pain and Suffering” to Rs.1,25,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/- presently granted; and under the head “Permanent Disability” (with

¶47

MACA NO. 3227 OF 2015

¶48

¶49

20%), to Rs.1,00,800/-, instead of Rs.60,000/- presently

¶50

awarded.

¶51

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶52

lsn

Prasad K.K. v. Geetha Krishnan(Deleted)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasad K.K. v. Geetha Krishnan(Deleted)

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

Narayanan P Vs Harita v. Kumar

Dr.K.Mohanakumar Vs K.Jeevan Babu I.A.S.

Fathima Beevi Vs Shyla

U.Viswanathan Vs Biju Prabhakar

District Insurance Officer Vs Joy Wilson

Pareethubhava Abdul Rahim Vs Madhavan Nair