Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Radhakrishnan N.K on 10 February, 2011

Bench: A.K.Basheer, P.Q.Barkath Ali

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 1317 of 2010()


1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. RADHAKRISHNAN N.K., AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH

                For Respondent  :SRI.N.J.ANTONY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI

 Dated :10/02/2011

 O R D E R
           A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
             =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
                   M.A.C.A.No. 1317 of 2010
             =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
             Dated this the 10th day of February, 2011

                          JUDGMENT

Barkath Ali, J.

Appellant is the 3rd respondent Insurance Company in O.P.(MV) No.146 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, Wayanad. In this appeal the appellant challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated November 18, 2009 awarding a compensation of Rs.1,18,246/- to the claimant for the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained in a motor accident.

2. The accident occurred on October 5, 2005. While the claimant was travelling in a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL 13A/7680, he was knocked down by an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. KL 12B/9806, driven by the 1st respondent. He sustained serious injuries. Alleging negligence against the 1st respondent , the MACA 1317/2010 2 claimant filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming a compensation of 2,50,000/-

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the respondent claimant

4. The only question which arise for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.

5. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,18,246/-. Break up of the compensation amount awarded is as under:-

      Loss of earnings                :    Rs. 26,012
      Transport to hospital           :    Rs. 14,750
      Extra nourishment               :    Rs.         500
      Damage to clothing              :    Rs.         500
      and articles.
      Bystander expenses              :    Rs.      1,500
      Medical expenses                :    Rs. 25,400
      Pain and suffering              :    Rs. 12,000
      Permanent partial disability    :    Rs. 37,584
                                           ------------------
          Total                       :    Rs.1,18,246
                                           =======

MACA 1317/2010                  3

6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.6,525/- and the disability fixed as 6% which are excessive. We find force in the above contention.

7. The claimant sustained multiple abrasions of right hand, right foot, left foot and fracture of middle ring finger.

8. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.6,525/- per month, adopted multiplier of 8, took the percentage of disability as 6% as certified by the Medical Board in Ext.C1 report and awarded a compensation of Rs.37,584/- for the disability caused. The claimant was an Assistant Grade Depot Manager in Rubber Marketing Society and was having a salary of Rs.9,074/- per month as revealed form Ext.A11 pay certificate. He was aged 45 at the time of the accident. Taking into consideration the fact that he is still in service, we feel that for assessing compensation for permanent disability his monthly income can reasonably be fixed at Rs.4,000/-. Percentage of disability as 6% certified by the Medical MACA 1317/2010 4 Board appears to be reasonable. Thus the claimant is entitled to only a compensation of Rs.23,040/- for the disability caused.

9. The Tribunal awarded Rs.14,750/- for transport to hospital, which appears to be excessive. In the circumstances of the case, we feel that a compensation of Rs.4,000/- would be reasonable on this count.

10. In the result, the claimant is found entitled to only Rs.92,952/- instead of Rs.1,18,246/- awarded by the Tribunal. He is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent.

The appeal is disposed of as found above.

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mn.