Partly allowed

Sanam Sahib v. Akhilraj

Kerala HC5 Jul 2024MACA/1531/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal sought enhanced compensation for permanent disability and correction of contributory negligence findings in a motor accident claim. The High Court fixed disability at 11% rather than 7%, allowing additional compensation. The court also set aside the finding of contributory negligence.

What did the court decide?

Appeal partly allowed; compensation enhanced by Rs. 2,00,000/- under permanent disability; contributory negligence finding set aside; total compensation Rs. 3,72,206/-.

Sanam Sahib Vs Akhilraj — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶3

MACA NO. 1531 OF 2019

¶4

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 15.10.2018 IN O.P (MV) NO.1562 OF 2014 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶5

APPELLANT/PETITIONER :-

¶6

SANAM SAHIB, THADATHIL HOUSE,
THOTTAMONMURI, RANNY VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK.

¶7

BY ADVS.
T.K.KOSHY
SRI.SABU I.KOSHY
SMT.V.V.RISANI

¶8

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 :-

¶9

1AKHILRAJ, S/O. VIKRAMAN V.K,
VADAKKADATHU HOUSE, THOTTAMON MURI,
RANNY VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK, PIN-689672.

¶10

2 NITHIN THAMPI, POOCHAKKULATHU VADSSERIL HOUSE, KEEKOZHUOOR P.O. RANNI, PIN-689672.

¶11

3 DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, KIZHAKKEDATHU BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689645.

¶12

BY ADV SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA - SC

¶13

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 05.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

MACA NO. 1531 OF 2019

C.R

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.1562 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

¶19

According to the appellant/claimant on 28.11.2014 at about 05.00 pm, while the appellant was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-25-F-4248 another motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-03-P-5506 came from Pathanamthitta-Erumeli public road in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motorcycle ridden by the appellant.. As a result of the accident, the appellant sustained serious injuries. The appellant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.11,70,250/-.

¶20

The respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy, but disputing the quantum of

¶21

MACA NO. 1531 OF 2019

¶22

¶23

compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced on either side. Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant and no evidence was marked on the side of the respondents. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of Rs.1,76,206/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

¶25

The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement under the following head ;

¶26

Compensation for permanent disability :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Ext.A9 - disability certificate issued by the District Hospital, Kozhencherry assessed the disability of the appellant as 11%, but the tribunal reduced the same to 7%. The finding of the tribunal does not appear to be reasonable. There is no reason to doubt the

¶27

MACA NO. 1531 OF 2019

¶28

¶29

genuineness of Ext.A9 - disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. Therefore, I fix the permanent disability of injured as 11%. In Malilikarjun v. Divisional Manager v. National Insurance Company & another [2013 KHC 4670] , as regards the assessment of compensation in the case of children, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus :- “if the disability is above 10% and up to 30% to the whole body, Rs.3,00,000/- up to 60%, Rs.4,00,000/- up to 90%, Rs.5,00,000/- and above 90%, it should be Rs.6,00,000/-. Since this Court has fixed the permanent disability at 11%, the compensation payable for permanent disability is fixed as Rs.3,00,000/-. Thus, there will be an additional amount of Rs.2,00,000/- under the said head.

¶30

The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the tribunal found that there was 20% negligence on the part of the appellant. The reason for such a finding by the tribunal is that the appellant who drove the motorcycle was a minor aged 16 years at the time of the accident, and he was not having licence. Therefore, the tribunal fixed negligence at 20% on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, i.e., the appellant. The learned counsel for the

¶31

MACA NO. 1531 OF 2019

¶32

¶33

appellant relied on a judgment in Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh and others [2008 (3) KHC 883] , wherein it was held that question of contributory negligence would arise only when both parties are found to be negligent. It was further held that though the injured was not possessing any licence, in the absence of any finding of fact that he was driving the two wheeler rashly and negligently, he cannot be held liable for contributory negligence to the accident merely because he was driving without licence. In Sudhir Kumar Rana (supra) , the appellant was aged 17 years. In the case on hand, the appellant is aged 16 years and it is an admitted fact that the charge sheet was drawn only against the 1^st respondent. No negligence was found against the appellant. Merely because he did not have a driving licence, it cannot be said that he contributed to the accident and was negligent in riding the motorcycle. Hence, the finding of the tribunal that there was contributory negligence of 20% on the part of the appellant does not appear to be correct. Accordingly, the finding of the tribunal, attributing negligence of 20% on the part of the appellant is set aside.

¶34

Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as

¶35

MACA NO. 1531 OF 2019

¶36

¶37

follows;

¶38

Sl. No.	Head of Claim	Amount claimed	Amount awarded by the tribunal	Modified in appeal	Total compensation
	Income/ notional income	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
1	Transport to hospital	13,000	1,500	(not modified)	1,500
2	Medical expenses	1,36,000	70,706	(not modified)	70,706
3	Compensation for permanent disability	4,90,000	1,00,000	2,00,000	3,00,000
	TOTAL	11,70,250	1,72,206	2,00,000	3,72,206

¶39

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant/claimant is awarded an additional compensation of

¶40

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The respondent insurer shall deposit the said enhanced amount awarded by this Court as well as the remaining 20% amount of Rs.1,72,206/- awarded by the tribunal together with interest and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The claimant shall

¶41

MACA NO. 1531 OF 2019

¶42

¶43

furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and bank details before the respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellant at the earliest in accordance with law.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE

¶46

SMA

Sanam Sahib v. Akhilraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanam Sahib v. Akhilraj

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

Zakariya.P.P Vs Krishnankutty.K

Nafeesa Vs the National Insurance Co.Ltd

Sijo, Vs Kuttappan

Babu Lukose Vs the Divisional Manager

Thomas C.M Vs Tajuddeen K

V.P.Abbas Vs the New India Assurance Company Ltd.