Allowed

Parameswaran v. Mohanan Pillai

Kerala HC9 Feb 2024MACA/1736/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident claims appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for a photographer injured when a stage carriage hit his motorcycle. The Tribunal's award was found grossly inadequate on income and loss of amenities; the court enhanced the award by Rs.48,840/-.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.48,840/- with interest at Tribunal rate and proportionate costs, deposited by insurer within 3 months.

Parameswaran Vs Mohanan Pillai — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 20TH MAGHA, 1945

¶5

MACA NO. 1736 OF 2013

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPMV 1753/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM

¶7

APPELLANT/S:

¶8

PARAMESWARAN
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.KUNJUKUNJU, MANJADIMUKKU, VADAKKUMTHALA EAST,
VADAKKUMTHALA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK.
BY ADV SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 MOHANAN PILLAI MAMPEREZHATHU VEEDU, THEVALAKKARA.

¶11

2VIJAYAN
KALARIKKALTHARAYIL VEEDU, NEELLKULAM, K.S.PURAM.
3BRANCH MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAJEEV RAJADHANI
SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI
SMT.REKHA NAIR
SRI.S.SHARAN
SRI.K.SIJU

¶12

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶13

MACA No. 1736 of 2013

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT Dated this the 09^th day of February, 2024

¶16

The appellant was the petitioner in O.P.(M.V)

¶17

No.1753/2013 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Kollam. The said claim petition was submitted
by the appellant seeking compensation for the injuries
sustained in a motor accident that occurred on
29.05.2006. According to him, the accident occurred when
the motorcycle ridden by him was hit by a stage carriage
driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent
manner. The 1st respondent was the owner of the said
vehicle, and it was insured with the third respondent.

¶18

2.The appellant was claimed to be a

¶19

photographer, aged 50 years, with a monthly income of
Rs.5000/-. He sustained permanent disability due to the
injuries and compensation was sought in such
circumstances.

¶20

3. The 1st respondent filed a written statement
contending that the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the appellant. The 3rd respondent filed a
written statement wherein they denied the existence of

¶21

the policy and also disputed the quantum of
compensation.

¶22

MACA No. 1736 of 2013

¶23

¶24

4.The evidence in this case consists of Ext.A1
to A9 from the side of the appellant and Ext.B1 policy
certificate from the side of the respondent.

¶25

5.After the trial, the Tribunal found that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd
respondent in driving the stage carriage. The Tribunal
also found that as on the date of the accident, there
was a valid policy in existence, and hence, the 3rd
respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The
quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.93,000/- and
the said amount was directed to be deposited by the 3rd
respondent with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of petition till the realisation with
proportionate cost. This appeal is submitted in such
circumstances by the appellant for enhancement of the
compensation.

¶26

6.Heard Sri. C.Rajendan, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Smt. Rekha Nair, the
learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent
insurance company.

¶27

7.The specific contention put forward by the
learned counsel for the appellant is to the effect that
the award passed by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate

¶28

MACA No. 1736 of 2013

¶29

¶30

under various heads, particularly under the head of
disability.

¶31

8.After perusing the records, I find force in
the said contention. It is to be noted that the monthly
income accepted by the Tribunal was only Rs.3000/-
which appears to be very low considering the fact that
the accident occurred in the year 2006. The claim in
this regard was Rs.5000/-. It is to be noted that as
per principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Ramachandrappa vs Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the
income of an ordinary worker is to be taken as
Rs.4500/- for an accident occurred in the year 2004.
Therefore, the monthly income of Rs.5000/-, as claimed
by the appellant could be treated as a reasonable
amount considering that the accident was in the year
2006.

¶32

9.As far as the disability is concerned, no
documents were produced to substantiate the same.
However, the Tribunal, after considering the nature of
the injuries sustained, adopted 7% as the physical
disability, which appears to be reasonable. Therefore,
while re-assessing the compensation with revised
monthly income, the amount of compensation for
disability comes to Rs.54,600/-(5000 x 12 x 13 x

¶33

MACA No. 1736 of 2013

¶34

¶35

7/100). The amount already awarded by the Tribunal
under this head is Rs.32,760/-; thus, the additional
amount comes to Rs.21,840/-.

¶36

10.Consequent to the revision of monthly income,
the appellant would be entitled to an additional amount
under the head of loss of earnings. The Tribunal
awarded compensation under this head for a period of 6
months, taking note of the injuries and the treatment
he had undergone. The said period appears to be
reasonable, and therefore, this would result in an
additional amount of Rs.12,000/-. Even though the
learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the
amount awarded to the appellant under the head of pain
and suffering is on the lower side, considering the
nature of injuries and other relevant aspects, I do not
find any scope for entertaining the said contention.

¶37

11.The Tribunal did not award any compensation
for the loss of amenities. The documents produced would
clearly indicate that he sustained serious head
injuries and had undergone prolonged treatment. The
Tribunal itself granted loss of earnings for a period
of six months, considering the prolonged treatment. The
said injuries resulted in physical disability as well.
In such circumstances, a reasonable amount needs to be

¶38

MACA No. 1736 of 2013

¶39

¶40

granted towards loss of amenities as the injuries and
disability adversely affected the quality of life of
the appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, I deem it appropriate to fix it as Rs.15,000/-.
Thus, the total additional compensation is determined
as Rs. 48,840/- (21840 + 12000+ 15000).

¶41

In the result this appeal is allowed. The Award
dated 30.03.2013 passed in O.P.(M.V) No.1753/2013 by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam, is hereby
modified by granting an additional compensation of Rs.
48,840/-(Rupees forty eight thousand , eight hundred
and forty only). The said amount shall be deposited by
the 3rd respondent insurance company, with interest at
the rate as ordered by the Tribunal, and proportionate
costs within a period of 3 months from the date of
receipt of the copy of this judgment.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

SM

Parameswaran v. Mohanan Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parameswaran v. Mohanan Pillai

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

Sherly Vs Ratheesh N.D.

Thilakan Vs Ratheesh N.D.

Jobin V.J Vs M/S. Nazarath Transport (P) Ltd. (Deleted)

Sunil Sheik Vs the State Police Chief

Arif Vs Anandan

B.Biju Vs Managing Director