Partly allowed

S.Narayanan Potty v. Anoop George

Kerala HC21 May 2024MACA/2116/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant claimed enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The Court modified the Tribunal's award, specifically enhancing bystanders' expenses and compensation for pain and suffering, while leaving other heads unmodified.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs. 12,800 along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs.

S.Narayanan Potty Vs Anoop George — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946

¶5

MACA NO. 2116 OF 2013

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 20.10.2012 IN OPMV NO.216 OF 2007 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶7

S.NARAYANAN POTTY
S/O.SANKARAN POTTY, ATHIRA, VAYALAR P.O.,
WARD NO.III, ALAPPUZHA.
SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶8

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶9

1 ANOOP GEORGE

¶10

S/O.P.T.YOHANNAN, REJUN LAYINIL, KAWADIAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 608.

¶11

2 MS.ZYXWARE TECHNOLOGIES TC 4/486, KAWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 608.

¶12

3NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
REP: BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
KAWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 608.
BY ADVS.

¶13

SMT.ANNA THOMAS
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶14

SMT. DEEPA GEORGE, SC

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD

¶16

ON 21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

MACA NO. 2116 OF 2013

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT Dated this the 21^st day of May, 2024

¶20

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.216 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal.

¶21

According to the appellant, on 01.06.2006 at about 10.30 p.m, near Paravoor Water Works Gate on Kollam – Alappuzha N.H., a Maruti Van bearing registration No.KL-01/AM-6460 hit the appellant and sustained serious injuries. The appellant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹15,00,000/-.

¶22

The third respondent insurer filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy of the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the Tribunal, the evidence consists of oral testimony of PW2 and the documentary evidence of Exts.A1 to A20 on the side of the appellant/claimant. No evidence was adduced by the respondent. The Tribunal after analysing the pleadings and materials on record awarded a sum of ₹6,96,783/- as compensation under different heads against the respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has

¶23

¶24

MACA NO. 2116 OF 2013

¶25

come up in appeal.

¶26

Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶27

The appellant claims compensation under the following

¶28

heads:

¶29

I. Compensation for permanent disability & loss of earning power

¶30

The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was drawing a salary of ₹11,319/- per month, at the time of accident as per Ext.A12 salary certificate. Since Ext.A12 was not objected at the time of marking of the same, the Tribunal ought to have taken the entire amount borne out in Ext.A12 as his monthly notional income. The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that since the appellant was working as a head constable in the Kerala Police Department, there is no loss of any income until his retirement and the learned Tribunal had rightly found that the income need to be calculated only after the date of retirement. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the amount arrived at by the Tribunal is excessive. However, on consideration of the entire facts, I feel that the Tribunal had rightly come to a conclusion that the appellant is entitled to get compensation of ₹7,000/- as his monthly notional income. However, I

¶31

MACA NO. 2116 OF 2013

¶32

¶33

am not inclined to grant any further enhancement for the notional income.

¶34

II. Medical expenses including bystander’s expenses

¶35

The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the bystander expenses granted by the Tribunal is very low. The appellant was granted ₹5,600/- towards bystander expenses even though he was in-patient for 56 days. The learned Standing Counsel submits that amount of ₹100 per day for 56 days granted by the Tribunal is reasonable. However, on consideration of the issue, I feel that ₹150/- per day can be granted for computing the bystander expenses. Hence, the appellant is entitled to get an additional amount of ₹ 2,800/ - towards the bystander expenses over and above ₹5600/- .

¶36

III. Compensation for pain and suferingsf

¶37

The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had suffered serious injuries and was in-patient for 56 days. The amount awarded towards pain and suffering was ₹30,000/-, which appears to be on the lower side. Considering the nature of the accident and the injury suffered by the appellant, I deem it appropriate to grant an additional amount of ₹10,000/- under the said head. Accordingly, an amount of ₹ 10,000/- shall be added to ₹30,000/-, already granted by the Tribunal under that head, totalling

¶38

MACA NO. 2116 OF 2013

¶39

5

¶40

to an amount of ₹40,000/-.

¶41

Though the appellant claimed enhancement of

¶42

compensation under other heads, on a perusal of the records available, I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads since it appears to be just and reasonable. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is

¶43

modified as follows;

¶44

Sl. No.	Head of Claim	Amount claimed (in Rs.)	Amount awarded by the tribunal (in Rs.)	Amount modified in appeal (in Rs.)	Total compensation
1	Expenses for Nutritious food	20,000	5,000	(not modified)	5,000
2	Transportation	15,000	8,678	(not modified)	8,678
3	Damage to Clothing	1,000	350	(not modified)	350
4	Medical Expenses including bystander’s expenses	4,00,000	3,46,195	2800	3,48,995
5	Compensation for pain and suffering	2,00,000	30,000	10,000	40,000
6	Compensation for permanent disability & loss of earning power	8,00,000	2,46,560	(not modified)	2,46,560
7	Compensation for future medical expenses	50,000	25,000	(not modified)	25,000
8	Compensation for	50,000	35,000/-		35,000

¶45

MACA NO. 2116 OF 2013

¶46

¶47

	loss of amenities in life			(not modified)
9	Total	15,00,000	6,96,783	12,800	7,09,583

¶48

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant/claimant is awarded an additional compensation of ₹ 12,800/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Eight Hundred Only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount 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 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. However, it is made clear that the enhanced compensation will not carry interest for the period of delay of 236 days in filing the appeal.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JUDGE

¶51

S.Narayanan Potty v. Anoop George

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Narayanan Potty v. Anoop George

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

Shirafudheen Vs K.K.Haridas

P. K. Sreenivasan Vs Canara Bank

P. Ananthakumar, Vs Union of India

Mrs. Sarala Vs Mr. Rajeev

Sheeba Vs Rajeev

Basudev Menon K.P Vs the Legal -Claims Manager