Kerala High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd vs Noufal P on 17 March, 2009
Author: Siri Jagan
Bench: S. Siri Jagan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SIRI JAGAN
&
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/29TH MAGHA 1934
MACA. No. 1616 of 2009 ( )
-------------------------
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV NO.218/2006 OF MACT VATAKARA DATED 17-03-2009
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
---------------------------------------------
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
VATAKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE
ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & 1ST RESPONDENT:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1. NOUFAL P., S/O. MUHAMMED,
PALLOLLATHIL HOUSE, PURAMERI AMSOM, MUTHUVADATHOOR
VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST.
2. RAJEEVAN T., S/O. KUMARAN,
PADINJARE PUTHUKKUDI HOUSE, P.O. NADAKKUTHAZHA
VATAKARA.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 18-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sp
S. SIRI JAGAN
&
BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No. 1616 of 2009
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2013
JUDGMENT
Siri Jagan, J.
The insurance company in a motor accident claim is aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara, in O.P.(MV) No.218 of 2006 whereby the Tribunal awarded Rs.6,54,051/- as compensation for the injuries and consequent disability suffered by the 1st respondent herein, in a motor accident caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the appellant. The counsel for the appellant raises two contentions. The first is that the driver was not made a party to the O.P. and, therefore, the O.P. itself is not maintainable. Further, he points out that the appellant had taken a specific contention that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident, which has not been properly considered by the Tribunal. The second contention raised by the appellant is that [M.A.C.A.No.1616/2009] 2 the amounts awarded as compensation is excessive.
2. We have considered the contentions of the counsel for the appellant. The owner is in the party array. The owner did not take a contention that the driver was not negligent in driving the vehicle. The appellant, though has taken a contention that there was no negligence on the part of the driver, did not choose to adduce any evidence in support of that contention. The documents relating to the criminal case also proves that the driver of the insured vehicle was charge sheeted for the act of negligent driving under the applicable provisions of the Indian Penal Code. There was no charge for non-possession of a valid licence as well. In the above circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the technical contention of the appellant regarding the absence of the driver in the party array.
3. The main contention regarding the quantum of compensation is that the compensation awarded to the tune of of Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering is excessive. It is also submitted that for future treatment, Rs.15,000/- has been awarded, on which also interest has been awarded, which is wrong. The details of the injuries, treatment and the disability [M.A.C.A.No.1616/2009] 3 suffered by the appellant are described in paragraph 10 of the judgment as follows:
"10. In order to prove these facts he has produced A3 to A13 documents. They will reveal that the petitioner had sustained compound depressed fracture of frontal bone, contusion on brain, bleeding from the nose, vertical lacerated wound on the left frontal region extending to the roof of the nose and left eyebrow with echimosis on left eye, peri orbital edema, lenier fracture extending across interior skull base of right middle cranial fossa, fracture of left maxila, pnemocephalus on left temporal lob and he is suffering from post traumatic epilepsy. The documentary evidence will reveal that petitioner was treated as inpatient at MIMS Kozhikode from 21.1.2006 to 29.1.2006, 16.11.05 to 30.11.05, 12.12.06 to 13.12.06. The petitioner has also obtained the report of District Medical Board is marked as XI and that will reveal the petitioner is having 40% visual disability and he is suffering from total loss of left eye sight and partial defect for right eye."
It does not need any expert opinion to conclude that the appellant must have suffered excruciating pain. That being so, we do not find any infirmity in the Tribunal awarding Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering to the 1st respondent. In view of the injuries and disability sustained by the 1st respondent, we are of opinion that no interference is warranted on the award of compensation under other heads as well. But, we think that for the compensation awarded for future treatment it was not proper to award interest. Therefore, with the modification that for Rs.25,000/- awarded as compensation for future treatment, no [M.A.C.A.No.1616/2009] 4 interest would be payable by the appellant, we confirm the award of the Tribunal and dispose of this appeal accordingly.
Sd/-
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE.
Sd/-
BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
krs.
// True Copy // P.S. to Judge.