Partly allowed

Rukkiya, v. Ali K.P

Kerala HC4 Jul 2024MACA/3685/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a motor accident appeal in part, modifying the Tribunal's award. The Court fixed notional income at ₹11,000/month, awarded ₹22,000 for loss of earning, increased permanent disability compensation to ₹66,000, and reduced loss of amenities to ₹30,000, resulting in a total enhancement of ₹58,000.

What did the court decide?

Awarded an additional compensation of ₹58,000 along with interest @ 8% p.a. and proportionate costs to be deposited by the respondent insurer.

Rukkiya, Vs Ali K.P — 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

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

MACA NO. 3685 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 06.05.2019 IN OPMV NO.2160 OF 2017 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶7

RUKKIYA,
AGED 66 YEARS
W/O. KUTTYAMI, 221/MOORKKANATTU HOUSE,
PALATHU SCHOOL, CHELANNURE P.O.,
KOZHIKODE-673611.
BY ADV ANIL KUMAR K.P.

¶8

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1ALI K.P,
AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KHADER, KOZHIPARAMBATHU
MEETHAL HOUSE, NARIKUNI, PARANNUR P.O.,
KOZHIKODE-673585.
2RISHAD K.,
AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. USMAN K., KAKKATTU HOUSE,
KIZHAKKUMURI P.O., KOZHIKODE-673611.
3NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO-LTD.,
DOOR NO.5/86-P FLOOR, WAYANAD ROAD,
FAIR MONT BUILDING, ERANHIPALAM,
KOZHIKODE-673006.
BY ADV JOY JOSEPH (MANAYATHU)

¶10

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 04.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

¶12

MACA NO. 3685 OF 2019

¶13

JUDGMENT Dated this the 4^th day of July, 2024

¶14

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.2160 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The respondents herein were the respondents before the Tribunal.

¶15

According to the appellant, on 09.09.2017, at about 11.55 p.m., the appellant while boarding bus bearing registration No.KL-57-F-5014 at Ottukulam bus stop in Kumaraswami -Narikuni Road, the driver of the bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner by which the appellant fell down and sustained injuries. The appellant approached the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹1,58,000/-.

¶16

The respondent-insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced on either side. Exts.A1 to A10 were marked on the side of the appellant and Ext.B1 on the side of the respondent. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and

¶17

¶18

MACA NO. 3685 OF 2019

¶19

materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹1,32,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% 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.

¶20

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

¶21

The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement under the following heads:-

¶22

I. Notional income

¶23

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that she was aged 66 years at the time of accident and was a homemaker and the injury was sustained to her right wrist. She was subjected to surgery for fixation of implant. Considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2017 and the appellant was a homemaker, I re-fix the notional income at ₹11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Only) per month.

¶24

II. Loss of earning

¶25

The Tribunal had not considered the compensation under

¶26

¶27

MACA NO. 3685 OF 2019

¶28

the head loss of earnings while passing the award. Considering the injuries and the fact that she was a homemaker, a period of two months can be taken for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings. Accordingly, the amount payable under the said head will be ₹22,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Only) (11,000 x 2).

¶29

III . P ermanent disability

¶30

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that a private orthopedic expert issued Ext.A9 disability certificate, assessing her permanent partial disability as 10%. On a perusal of the said certificate, it is seen that the doctor had examined the appellant and assessed the disability as 10%. In Manikantan G. v. K.Janardhanan Nair [2021 (5) KHC 305] , it is stated that the certificate issued by the Medical Board has to be taken into consideration and that if the Tribunal had any doubt, they ought to have followed the dictum laid down in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [2011 (1) KLT 620]. The Tribunal, however, did not refer the appellant for further examination by raising any doubt. Hence, I do not find any reason to disbelieve Ext.A9 disability certificate issued by the

¶31

¶32

MACA NO. 3685 OF 2019

¶33

doctor. Considering the fact that she was aged 66 years at the time of accident, the multiplier to be applied is ‘5’. The compensation payable under the said head is calculated thus: ₹66,000/- (11,000 x 12 x 5 x 10%).

¶34

IV. Loss of amenities/enjoyment of life

¶35

The Tribunal, while passing the award, considered the head ‘loss of amenities, enjoyment in life and permanent disability’ together. Under the said head, Tribunal awarded an amount of ₹60,000/-. On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the said amount of ₹60,000/- was awarded since the Tribunal was not inclined to grant any amount towards permanent disability. Since this Court has awarded an amount of ₹66,000/towards permanent disability, I am of the view that the amount of ₹60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the afore head is to be reduced to Rs.30,000/-. Accordingly, I do so.

¶36

Though the appellant claimed enhancement of 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.

¶37

MACA NO. 3685 OF 2019

¶38

¶39

Thus, the impugned award of the Tribunal is modified as

¶40

follows:

¶41

Sl. No.	Head of Claim	Amount claimed (in Rs.)	Amount awarded by the Tribunal (in Rs.)	Amount modified in appeal (in Rs.)	Total compensati on
	Notional income	-	-	11,000
1	Loss of earnings	-	-	22,000	22,000
2	Pain and sufferings	50,000	20,000	(not modified)	20,000
3	Permanent disability			66,000	66,000
4	Loss of amenities, enjoyment in life	50,000	60,000	30,000 (reduced)	30,000
4	Medical expenses	50,000	42,000	(not modified)	42,000
5	Transport to hospital	3,000	3,000	(not modified)	3,000
6	Extra Nourishment	5,000	3,000	(not modified)	3,000
	Total	1,58,000	1,28,000 (mistakenly shown as Rs.1,32,000 in the order of the Tribunal	i 58000 (22000+ 66000- 30000)	1,86,000

¶42

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

¶43

MACA NO. 3685 OF 2019

¶44

¶45

₹58,000/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Thousand 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 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.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE

¶48

Rukkiya, v. Ali K.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukkiya, v. Ali K.P

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

Mohanan Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Chandran Vs I.v.Sabu

Suma Vs Mr.Arun

Zakariya.P.P Vs Krishnankutty.K

Nafeesa Vs the National Insurance Co.Ltd

Sijo, Vs Kuttappan