Allowed

Ratheesh v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Kerala HC16 Mar 2023MACA/3898/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed an appeal against an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for inadequacy. The Court enhanced the compensation under various heads such as loss of earning, extra nourishment, and future treatment to Rs.72,800/- and directed the insurer to deposit it.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.72,800/- awarded with interest at 9% per annum to be deposited by the insurer within two months.

Ratheesh Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶2

MACANO.3898OF2016

¶3

OP(MV) 421/2015 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM

¶4

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶5

RATHEESH,S/O.KUNHIKRISHNAN,PALLATHESWAPANAVIHAR,
THIRUVAZHIYODE(PO),PALAKKADDISTRICT.

¶6

BYADVS.

¶7

SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR
SRI.RANJITBABU

¶8

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.3:

¶9

ORIENTALINSURANCECOMPANYLTD.,
DIVISIONALOFFICE,2NDFLOOR,BUILTECHFOUNDATIONS,
CHITTOORROAD,PALAKKADDISTRICT,PIN-678001.

¶10

BY ADV SRI.TITUS MANI VETTOM

¶11

THISMOTORACCIDENTCLAIMSAPPEALHAVINGBEENFINALLY
HEARDON16.03.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

MACA 3898 of 2016

J U D G M E N T

The claimant in OP(MV)No.421 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam, is the appellant herein, challenging the award on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.

¶16

On 07.02.2015 at about 8.30 p.m., while the appellant was riding a motorcycle through Ottapalam-Palakkad public road, KL-9/P-3614 motorcycle ridden in front, in the same direction, by the 1^st respondent, suddenly without giving any signal, swerved his motorcycle towards right, and hit the motorcycle of the appellant, whereby he was thrown down and sustained serious injuries including head injury. He was admitted and treated in hospital for 14 days. He approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.3,25,000/-. But the Tribunal awarded only Rs.1,75,520/-, and impugning the award, he has come up with this appeal.

¶17

The 1^st respondent was the rider of the offending motorcycle, 2^nd respondent was its owner, and the 3^rd respondent was its Insurer. The accident, injuries and the Policy of the offending vehicle are not in dispute.

¶18

Before the Tribunal, PWs1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A12 were marked from the side of the appellants.

¶19

No oral or documentary evidence was let in from the side of the

MACA 3898 of 2016

respondents.

Heard learned counsel Sri.K.B.Arunkumar appearing for the appellant and learned counsel Sri.Titus Mani Vettom appearing for the contesting respondent/Insurer.

¶24

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

¶25

According to the appellant, he was a 33 year old Electrician, earning monthly income @ Rs.12,000/-. He produced Ext.A10 Salary Certificate to prove his monthly income @ Rs.11,252/-. The learned Tribunal accepted Ext.A10 Salary Certificate and fixed his monthly income @ Rs.11,250/-. But the Tribunal assessed loss of earning only for two months. The appellant sustained injuries such as Diffuse Axonal injury, Traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage and right maxillo-zygomatic complex fracture. Considering the nature of injuries suffered and the period of hospitalisation, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken loss of earning at least for a period of six months @ Rs.11,250/- per month. If so he was eligible to get Rs.67,500/for loss of earning for six months. He was already awarded Rs.22,500/by the Tribunal, and so he will get the balance amount of Rs.45,000/- as enhanced compensation for loss of earning.

¶26

Towards extra nourishment and bystander expenses, the

¶27

Tribunal awarded only Rs.200/- each per day, during the period of

¶28

MACA 3898 of 2016

¶29

¶30

hospitalisation, i.e., 13 days. Considering the nature of injuries suffered and the period required for stabilizing the head injury, even after discharge from hospital, he might have been in need of a bystander. He might have been on extra nourishment also as he had suffered maxillo-zygomatic complex fracture, making him difficult to take normal food. So this Court is inclined to award Rs.300/- each per day for 30 days towards extra nourishment as well as towards bystander expenses amounting to Rs.9,000/- each. Since the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,600/each under the head ‘extra nourishment’ and ‘bystander expenses’, the appellant is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.6,400/- each under the head ‘extra nourishment’ and ‘bystander expenses’.

¶31

Towards future treatment, no amount was awarded by the Tribunal, though the appellant had claimed Rs.25,000/-. It is true that the appellant did not adduce any evidence to prove future medical expenses. But Exts.A7 and A8 Discharge Summaries will show that he was advised to continue medication on discharge, and he was directed to come for review in Neurosurgery OP Department after two weeks. Moreover, Ext.A7 Discharge Summary shows that at the time of discharge, the appellant was having occasional behavioural disturbances, which might have been due to the head injury he had suffered. Considering that fact also, this Court is inclined to award Rs.10,000/towards future treatment.

¶32

MACA 3898 of 2016

¶33

¶34

The appellant was a 33 year old Electrician, who suffered fracture involving facial bone and skull base as revealed from CT Scan. Behavioural disorder also was reported in Ext.A7 Discharge Summary. Considering these aspects, towards loss of amenities, this Court is inclined to award Rs.5,000/- more.

¶35

The compensation awarded under all other heads seems to be reasonable and hence it need not be disturbed.

¶36

Head of claim	Amount awarded by the Tribunal	Amount awarded in appeal	Difference to be drawn as enhanced compensation
Loss of earning	Rs.22,500/-	Rs.67,500/-	Rs.45,000/-
Extra nourishment	Rs.2,600/-	Rs.9,000/-	Rs.6,400/-
Bystander expenses	Rs.2,600/-	Rs.9,000/-	Rs.6,400/-
Future treatment	…..	Rs.10,000/-	Rs.10,000/-
Loss of amenities	Rs.12,500/-	Rs.17,500/-	Rs.5,000/-
Total			Rs.72,800/-

¶37

In the result, the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.72,800/- (45,000 + 6,400 + 6,400 + 10,000 + 5,000).

¶38

The liability of the respondent/Insurer to compensate the injured is not under challenge. So the respondent/Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.72,800/- (Rupees Seventy Two

¶39

MACA 3898 of 2016

¶40

¶41

Thousand Eight Hundred only) in the Bank account of the appellant, with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within 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 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.

¶42

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

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE

¶45

DSV/17.03.2023.

Ratheesh v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratheesh v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

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

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Joseph Mathew

Devasia @ Kunjumon Vs Prasanth P.M.

Sureshkumar T.D. Vs Smt. Sara Mohammed

Rejitha Jagan Vs Thangal Kunju

Kalavathy Vs Mohammed P T

Lakshmi Vs S.Rajendran