Kerala High Court
Lineesh T.P vs T.K.Jaleel on 25 July, 2011
Author: C.K.Abdul Rehim
Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/18TH MAGHA, 1938
MACA.No. 61 of 2012
-----------------------
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1151/2009 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL,KOZHIKODE DATED 25-07-2011
APPELLANT:
------------
LINEESH T.P.
AGED 32, S/O.CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT THADAPARAMBATH HOUSE,
P.O.NELLIKODE, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN
SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN
RESPONDENTS:
--------------
1. T.K.JALEEL
S/O.V.M.ALI, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT THAIKKANDIYIL
HOUSE, P.O.MUTHIYANGA PATHAYAKKUNNU, KUTHUPARAMBA,
KANNUR-670 691.
2. JABEER.T.K
AGED 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT THAIKKANDIYIL HOUSE,
P.O.MUTHIYANGA, PATHAYAKKUNNU, KUTHUPARAMBA,
KANNUR-670 691.
3. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
6/255/C, 2ND FLOOR, CITY PLAZA BUILDING YMCA CROSS ROAD,
KOZHIKODE.
R3 SUBSTITUTE.
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO.LTD., SUNDARAM
TOWERS, `45X46' WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI, SUBSTITUTED THE
INSURER AS PER ORDER IN IA 4065/2010 DATED 23.7.10.
RR3 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
RR3 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
R BY SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
C.K. ABDUL REHIM & SHIRCY V.,JJ.
==============================
M.A.C.A. No. 61 of 2012
==============================
Dated this the 7th day of February, 2017
JUDGMENT
Shircy V., J.
Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, the appellant has preferred this appeal. Admittedly, he had sustained injuries in a road traffic accident which took place on 28.11.2008 at about 7.30 p.m. Immediately after the accident he was rushed to a hospital and had undergone treatment.
2. The accident as well as the insurance policy are not in dispute. So also the finding of the Tribunal regarding the negligence of the 2nd respondent, the driver of the offending vehicle is admitted. So the only question to be determined is whether the Tribunal had granted just and reasonable MACA 61/2012 2 compensation to the appellant who had sustained injuries in the accident. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal grossly erred in not awarding reasonable compensation under different heads and that has to be enhanced. He has also submitted that the appellant was a coolie worker earning a monthly income of Rs.8,000/-, but the Tribunal had taken only an amount of Rs 3,000/- as monthly income. Of-course it is significant to note that no evidence have been adduced by him to substantiate the claim that he was getting a monthly income of Rs.8,000/- per month but we feel that it is slightly on the lower side and that has to be enhanced and we enhance it as Rs.3500/-p.m. As per Exts.A2 wound certificate and Ext.A3 Reference Card the appellant had sustained hemorrhagic contusion left parietal lobe with diffuse cerebral edema, lacerated wound over face, forehead, hands, knee, dorsum of both feet, contusion left flank 3x3 cm. He was admitted in the hospital as an inpatient and treated from 28.11.2008 till 9.12.2008. MACA 61/2012 3 Exts.P7 and P8 medical bills would show that he had to spent considerable amount for his treatment. It is also pertinent to note that he had sustained permanent disability due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Ext.P1 is the disability certificate issued by the Doctor who had treated him. Permanent disability suffered by him is assessed as 30%. It is also pertinent to note that the Doctor who had issued the disability certificate was examined on the side of the Insurance Company and he has deposed before the court that the disability sustained by him is 30%. So no doubt the Tribunal is justified in accepting the certificate as such . But considering all these facts we feel that the total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal have to be refixed as the compensation awarded under some heads are on the lower side. It is evident that as he sustained injuries he had to be taken to the hospital on various dates. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.1000/- as the expenses met by him for transportation to the MACA 61/2012 4 hospital. We feel that it has to be enhanced as Rs.3000/- which would entitle the appellant to get a further amount of Rs.2,000/- on that count. As the loss of earning, the Tribunal has granted only Rs.12,000/- taking the monthly income of Rs.3000/-. Since we fixed the monthly income as Rs.3500/-, an amount of Rs.14,000/-is granted as compensation for loss of earning which would entitle to get a further amount of Rs.2,000/- under that head. As compensation for bystanders expenses, the Tribunal has granted only an amount of Rs.1950/-. Since he had sustained grievous injuries, he had to seek assistance of a bystander atleast for a period of 60 days. So we fix Rs.9000/- as compensation under that head which would entitle him to get a further amount of Rs.7050/-. For pain and sufferings only an amount of Rs.20,000/- has been granted. Since it is on the lower side, we enhance it Rs.30,000/- which would entitle him to get a further amount of Rs.10,000/. As loss of amenities and enjoyment in life MACA 61/2012 5 only Rs.6000/- has been granted. We enhance the said amount as Rs.15,000/- which would entitle the appellant to get a further amount of Rs.9,000/-. As the compensation for permanent disability sustained, the amount has to be reworked and he is entitled to get Rs.2,01,600/- (3500x12x16x30/100) which would entitle him to get a further amount of Rs.28,800/-.
3. Thus the appellant is entitled for a total enhancement of Rs.58,850/-. Therefore the above appeal is hereby allowed by giving an enhancement of Rs.58,850/- (Rupees fifty eight thousand eight hundred and fifty only). The said amount will carry an interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation. The 3rd respondent/ Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within a period of two months from today.
If such deposit is made, the appellant is at liberty to approach the Tribunal seeking withdrawal of the amount. If MACA 61/2012 6 any such application is filed, the Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders considering the question of permitting withdrawal.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE Sd/-
SHIRCY V. JUDGE ks.
True copy P.S. (Hr.Gr.)To Judge