High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-06-04Appeal partly allowed; enhanced compensation aw...

Hakkeem v. A. Nazeer, Saleem Alangadan and The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.1567 OF 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Bench type: Single Judge
Judgment Date: 2020-06-04
Court Decision / Holding: MACA is allowed in part. The appellant is entitled to an additional compensation of ₹3,11,880, with interest at 7% per annum from the date of the petition until realization, but excluding interest for 457 days due to delay in filing. The 3rd respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within 30 days.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; deposits to be made within 30 days; interest computed with a carve-out for delay.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Hakkeem, S/o Moideen

Respondents

A. Nazeer S/o A. Moosa
Saleem Alangadan S/o Saidu
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SMT.K.V.RASHMI

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri M. Jacob Murickan
• Smt. K.S. Shanthi

Case Synopsis & Summary

On 04 June 2020, the Kerala High Court (Single Judge N. Nagareesh) heard MACA No.1567 of 2014 challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Kozhikode’s award in OP(MV) No.114/2009 (dated 16 February 2011) arising from a 20 April 2008 motor-vehicle accident involving a lorry owned by the 1st respondent and driven by the 2nd respondent. Hakkeem, a mechanic aged around 29, claimed ₹4,00,000 as consolidated compensation for injuries sustained in the crash. The Tribunal awarded ₹2,95,752, granting heads such as loss of earnings, transport to hospital, extra nourishment, damage to clothing, treatment expenses, by-stander’s expenses, pain and suffering, and permanent disability (42%). The appellant contended that his monthly income was underestimated (actual ₹7,000) and that several heads, including pain and suffering and loss of amenities, were inadequately compensated. The respondents contended contributory negligence and attacked the quantum as excessive, while confirming insurance coverage with the 3rd respondent. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's Syed Sadiq decision (2014) to fix monthly income at ₹6,500 and recalculated entitlements. It enhanced the disability compensation and other heads, added a ₹6,000 boost to pain and suffering, and adjusted extra nourishment and by-stander expenses to reflect 2008 rates. Interest was fixed at 7% with a carve-out for 457 days; the enhanced amount must be deposited within 30 days. The appeal was partly allowed with consequential increases in compensation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal undervalued his income (₹3,000/month is far below the claimed ₹7,000/month) and inadequately compensated for 42% disability with 27 days of hospitalisation. He argues for enhancement under all heads, citing the Supreme Court’s Syed Sadiq decision (2014), which requires re-determining income at not less than ₹6,500 per month in similar cases, thereby increasing several heads of compensation. He seeks higher damages for loss of earnings, pain and suffering, extra nourishment, and by-stander expenses, and argues that interest on enhanced amounts should be calculated from the petition date.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contest the claimed monthly income as ₹7,000, arguing lack of evidence; they maintain ₹3,000/month as rightly fixed by the Tribunal and contend the existing award is reasonable. They deny negligence was exaggerated and oppose inflated damages; if any enhancement is granted, they request excluding interest for the delay period (457 days) and argue against abolition of the Tribunal’s reasoning for the disability award.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Syed Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.	(2014) 2 SCC 735	Positive	Cited as persuasive authority to fix a higher monthly income (₹6,500) in similar FA/MACT matters; the High Court applied this principle to determine entitlement for enhanced compensation.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Hakkeem v. A. Nazeer, Saleem Alangadan and The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1942** ## **MACA.No.1567 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) NO.114/2009 DATED 16-02-2011 OF PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOZHIKODE** ## **APPELLANT:** **HAKKEEM AGED 29 YEARS S/O.MOIDEEN, MANNARODU VEEDU, NOORAMTHODU POST,THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE.** **BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RASHMI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 A.NAZEER S/O.A.MOOSA, 3171, MOHD, SAIT BLOCK, LAKSHAR MOHALLA, MYSORE. 2 SALEEM ALANGADAN S/O.SAIDU, ALANGADAN HOUSE, MUTTIL POST, WAYANAD - 673 122.** **3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD PRAMOD BUILDING, CHEROOTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE -673 001.** **R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN SMT. K.S. SHANTHI** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-06-2020, THE COURT ON 04-06-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA. No.1567 OF 2014** **2** ## **J U D G M E N T** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ## _**Dated this the 4[th] day of June, 2020**_ Aggrieved by the Award in OP(MV) No.114/2009 dated 16.02.2011 of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, the appellant who is the petitioner in the OP(MV), has filed this appeal invoking Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. In the claim petition, the appellant stated that on 20.04.2008 while he was riding a motorcycle through Kozhikode – Thamarassery public road, a lorry owned by the 1[st] respondent and driven by the 2[nd] respondent hit his motorcycle. The accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2[nd] respondent. The appellant was taken to Medical College Hospital and was treated. The appellant claimed ₹4 lakhs as consolidated compensation. **MACA. No.1567 OF 2014** **3** 3. All the respondents filed written statements opposing the claim made by the appellant. Respondents contended that the accident took place due to contributory negligence. They challenged the allegedly exorbitant and unreasonable amount of compensation claimed by the appellant. The insurance of the lorry with the 3[rd] respondent was admitted. 4. The petitioner produced Exts.A1 to A8. The Court marked Ext.C1 Medical Board Report. On examining the evidence, the Tribunal awarded ₹2,95,752/- as compensation to the appellant under the following heads:- |**Sl.** **No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount** **claimed** **(Rs.)**|**Amount awarded** **(Rs.)**| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earning|50,000|15,000 (3,000 x 5 months)| |2|Transport to Hospital|5,000|1,000| |3|Extra nourishment|5,000|750| |4|Damage to clothing and other articles|2,000|750| |5|Treatment expenses|80,000|6,512 (as per Ext.A8 series)| |6|Bystander's expenses|Nil|2,700 (100 x 27 days)| |7|Pain and suffering|30,000|12,000| |8|Permanent disability|2,00,000|2,57,040 (3,000 x 12 x 17 x 42/100)| ||**Total**||**2,95,752**| **MACA. No.1567 OF 2014** **4** Interest at the rate of 7% per annum was also awarded. The 3[rd] respondent was directed to deposit the amount. It is dissatisfied by the amount of compensation, the appellantpetitioner is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the appellant was a 26 year old youth, working as Mechanic and earning ₹7,000/-. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the appellant as ₹3,000/-. The appellant had suffered 42% disability. He was hospitalised for 27 days. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards extra nourishment, bystander expenses, pain and suffering and loss of amenities are also much on the lower side. The counsel for the appellant contended that this Court should enhance the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant. 6. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent-Insurer vehemently opposed the arguments of the appellant. The Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent pointed out that no evidence was bought on record by the **MACA. No.1567 OF 2014** **5** appellant to show that he has monthly income of ₹7,000/-. In the absence of any material on record, the Tribunal rightly fixed the monthly income of the appellant as ₹3,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded ₹12,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is reasonable. The appellant is not entitled to any amount as compensation towards loss of amenities since the Tribunal has given due compensation for permanent disability. The appeal of the appellant is without any merit and it is liable to be dismissed. The learned Standing Counsel also prayed that, in the event this Court enhancing the compensation amount, the interest portion relating to the period of delay in filing the MACA may be excluded. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent. 8. The appellant has contended before the Tribunal that he is a Mechanic earning ₹7,000/- per month. The respondents could not effectively disprove the status of the **MACA. No.1567 OF 2014** **6** appellant as a Mechanic. As regards his claim of monthly salary of ₹7,000/-, the Tribunal took ₹3,000/- as monthly income of the appellant. The accident occurred in the year 2008. Therefore, going by the law laid down and guidelines given by the Apex Court in _**Syed Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.**_ _[(2014) 2 SCC 735]_ , the monthly income of the appellant should be taken at least as ₹6,500/-. That being so, the appellant will be eligible for enhancement of compensation under relevant heads. 9. The Tribunal has granted an amount of ₹2,57,040/- towards compensation for disability treating ₹3,000/- as monthly income. Taking the monthly income of the appellant as ₹6,500/-, the appellant will be entitled to an amount of ₹2,99,880/- towards compensation for permanent disability (₹6,500/- x 12 x 17 x 42/100 minus ₹2,57,040/already awarded by the Tribunal). 10. Consequent to the accident, the appellant was hospitalised for 27 days. The appellant was granted only **MACA. No.1567 OF 2014** **7** ₹750/- towards extra nourishment. The appellant will be entitled to compensation for extra nourishment at the rate of ₹150/- per day since the accident was in the year 2008. Consequentially, the appellant is held entitled to an additional compensation of ₹3,300/- (₹150/- x 27 minus ₹750/- already awarded by the Tribunal) towards extra nourishment. The Tribunal granted by-stander's expenses at the rate of ₹100/- per day for 27 days. As the accident is of the year 2008, the appellant has to be compensated at the rate of ₹200/- per day towards by-stander's expenses. Accordingly, it is held that the appellant will be entitled to an additional compensation of ₹2,700/- (₹200/- x 27 minus ₹2,700/- already awarded by the Tribunal) under this head. 11. Taking note of the fact that the appellant has suffered injuries (a) Type III open # shaft of femur right, (b) Type II open # shaft of Humerus, (c) Cerebral Odema and (e) # Zygoma, # Medial wall of the orbit, this Court is of the opinion that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is to be enhanced. Accordingly, an **MACA. No.1567 OF 2014** **8** additional compensation of ₹6,000/- is awarded to the appellant towards compensation for pain and suffering. As the appellant is awarded compensation for permanent disability, no separate compensation is necessary towards loss of amenities. Accordingly, MACA is allowed in part. The appellant is held entitled to an additional compensation of ₹3,11,880/-. The additional compensation also will carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the petition till the realisation of additional compensation. However, the appellant will not be entitled to interest for the delay period of 457 days in filing the MACA. The 3[rd] respondent is directed to deposit the amount within 30 days. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks/02/06/2020