Allowed

Sabith v. Abdul Hakeem

Kerala HC12 Oct 2023MACA/3237/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This motor accident claims appeal challenged the award of a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal regarding compensation for a minor injured in an accident. The High Court applied Supreme Court guidelines to enhance compensation amount and awarded additional funds.

What did the court decide?

Award for an additional compensation of Rs.79,826/- granted and ordered to be deposited by the insurer along with interest.

Sabith Vs Abdul Hakeem — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

MACA NO. 3237 OF 2014

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 20TH ASWINA, 1945

¶6

MACA NO. 3237 OF 2014

¶7

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 13.10.2008 IN OP(MV)NO.832/2004 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER :

¶9

SABITH

¶10

S/O. THORAPPA MOHAMMED, AYINIKUNDU HOUSE,
ANAKKAYAM, POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.K.M.MOHAMED ABDURAHIMAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 ABDUL HAKEEM

¶13

S/O. T.P. MOIDEENKUTTY, THEKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE,
VALLIKKAPATTA, KUTTIYANGADI AMSAM, MANKADA POST,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT(DRIVER). PIN-679324.

¶14

2THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
BRANCH OFFICE, JASEELA COMPLEX, NILAMBUR ROAD,
MANJERI POST(INSURER) PIN-676121.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.T.BASHEER
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SC SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

MACA NO. 3237 OF 2014

¶19

¶20

ZIYAD RAHMAN, A.A, J

¶21

M.A.C.A No. 3237 of 2014

¶22

Dated this the 12th day of October, 2023

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The appellant is the petitioner in OP(MV)No.832/2004 on

¶25

the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri.

¶26

The said claim petition was submitted by the

¶27

appellant seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to

¶28

him in a motor accident that occurred on 30.09.2003. He was

¶29

hit by a good autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-10-L-43, while he was walking. The appellant was aged eight years at

¶30

the time of the accident, and consequent to the injuries, he

¶31

suffered a permanent disablement of 3%. The compensation

¶32

was claimed in such circumstances for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The first respondent was the owner-driver of the

¶33

said vehicle, and the said vehicle was insured with the second respondent.

¶34

The first respondent filed a written statement

¶35

MACA NO. 3237 OF 2014

¶36

¶37

disputing negligence on his part. The second respondent filed

¶38

a written statement admitting the coverage of policy in respect of the said vehicle but disputed the liability on various grounds. The quantum of compensation was also disputed by them.

¶39

The evidence in this consists of Ext.A1 to A9 from

¶40

the side of the appellant, and the disability certificate was produced as Ext.X1. No evidence was adduced from the side of the respondent.

¶41

After examining the materials placed on record, the

¶42

Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent and since the second respondent was the insurer of the said vehicle, they were liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was

¶43

fixed as Rs 27,450/-. This appeal is submitted in such circumstances.

¶44

Heard Adv.Sri. K.M.M. Abdurahiman Thoppil, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Adv.Sri. P.

¶45

Jacob Mathew, the learned standing counsel appearing for the

¶46

MACA NO. 3237 OF 2014

¶47

¶48

second respondent.

¶49

The quantum of compensation alone is disputed in

¶50

this appeal. The appellant was a minor aged eight years at the time of the accident. The physical disability was certified as

¶51

3%, as per the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. The question regarding the computation of compensation for the injuries sustained by a minor was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Master Mallikarjun V. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr [(2014) 14 SCC 396]. In the said decision, certain guidelines for determining the compensation were framed by the Honourable Supreme Court, as per which compensation for a minor who sustained physical disability up to 10%, can be fixed as Rs.1,00,000/-, along with the actual expenses incurred.

¶52

In such circumstances, by following the principles laid down in the said decision, I deem it appropriate to fix the compensation as Rs.1,00,000/-. When it comes to the question

¶53

of actual expenses, it can be seen that the tribunal awarded

¶54

MACA NO. 3237 OF 2014

¶55

¶56

Rs.500/- under the head of transport to the hospital, Rs.250/towards the damage to the clothing, and Rs.3000/- towards extra nourishment and bystanders expenses, and towards medical expenses a further sum of Rs.3526/- was granted. These figures represent the actual expenses incurred by the appellant, and hence, the said amount can be granted. Thus, the total compensation the appellant is entitled to is Rs.1,07,276/-. The Tribunal already awarded Rs.27,450/- and therefore, the additional compensation receivable by the appellant is determined as Rs.79,826/-.

¶57

In the light of the aforesaid finding and observation, the award dated 13.10.2008 in OP(MV)No.832/2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is hereby modified by granting an additional compensation of Rs.79,826/- (Rupees seventy nine thousand, eight hundred and twenty six only) and the second respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount along with interest at the rate as ordered by the Tribunal and proportionate costs, within a period of three

¶58

MACA NO. 3237 OF 2014

¶59

¶60

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It

¶61

is clarified that, as the appeal was filed with a petition to condone the delay of 2118 days, the second respondentInsurance Company, shall be at liberty to exclude the said

¶62

period of delay for the purpose of computation of interest.

¶63

sd/-

¶64

ZIYAD RAHMAN, A.A, JUDGE

¶65

R.AV

Sabith v. Abdul Hakeem

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabith v. Abdul Hakeem

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 Company Limited Vs Jasmi Santhosh

Sivadasan Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Rincia @ Rinciya Rahim,Rep.by Her Father Vs Manoharan and Others

Ashiq Sulthan Vs State of Kerala

Lakshmikutty Amma Vs Managing Director, Ksrtc and Another

Rishad Vs Bhaskaran