M.A.C.A.No.1365 of 2011

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: R. Basant
M. C. Hari Rani
Judgment Date: 2011-10-24
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed in part; the claimant is entitled to a further Rs.23,264 in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. The total compensation shall carry 7% interest from 25/08/2008 for the aggregate amount; proportionate costs before the Tribunal shall be paid as per the decision in Jeena (Supra). All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed; enhanced compensation and proportionate costs; directions of MACT upheld on other points.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P. M. Abdul Jabbar

Respondents

Ahammed Basheer Pandikasala
Biju C
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri AVM Salahudin
• Smt. P. Y. Sheheera

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. R. ReMa (for R3)
• Sri John Joseph Vettikkad (for respondents 1-2)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Claimant, P. M. Abdul Jabbar, seeks enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) Kozhikode for injuries sustained in a motor accident on 15 September 2007. He sustained grave injuries, including rupture of the descending aorta at the isthmus with haematoma, fracture of T9 vertebra and left fifth rib, and haemothorax, requiring in-patient care from 15 to 27 September 2007 with surgery on 15 September. The MACT awarded Rs. 1,83,186 of the claimed Rs. 3,00,000. The appellant argues that the quantum is inadequate given the severity of injuries and the prolonged treatment, noting the tribunal’s underestimation of heads such as loss of earnings, extra nourishment, treatment expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities. The court observes the seriousness of injuries and a roughly four-month period of involuntary unemployment, and reassesses the amounts. It determines that: (i) loss of earnings should be Rs.12,000 (Rs.3,000 x 4 months) but Rs.6,000 was awarded; (ii) extra nourishment should be Rs.2,500 instead of Rs.1,000 (additional Rs.1,500); (iii) treatment expenses should be Rs.1,65,000 instead of Rs.1,59,236 (additional Rs.5,764); (iv) pain and suffering and loss of amenities should be Rs.25,000 instead of Rs.15,000 (additional Rs.10,000). In total, the appellant is awarded a further Rs.23,264 in addition to the tribunal’s amount; interest at 7% is directed from 25/08/2008; proportionate costs are to be paid as per Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K. All other tribunal directions are upheld and the appeal is partly allowed.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not adequate in light of the grave injuries and extended hospitalisation. He argues that the Tribunal erred in underestimating loss of earnings, transport and nourishment, and failed to compensate adequately for medical and incidental expenses and for pain and suffering and loss of amenities in view of the extent of injuries and four months of unemployment anticipated in the recovery period. The appeal seeks higher compensation under several heads and a more realistic appraisal of the claimant’s losses and suffering.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the Tribunal’s award was fair and just, supported by medical records and the evidence on record. They contend that no substantial addition to the award is warranted beyond what the tribunal provided, and that the income evidence was not sufficiently proven to justify a higher figure.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K	2011(3) KLT 943	Positive	Cited to justify award of proportionate costs and to align costs with the Supreme/High Court practice referenced in Jeena (Supra).

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2011 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1365 of 2011() ----------------------OPMV.971/2008 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OPMV. ------------------------------------------- P.M.ABDUL JABBAR,S/O.AYAMMED, POOVAMMALA HOUSE, CHAMAL POST, THAMARASSERY VIA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN SMT.P.Y.SHEHEERA RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV) --------------- 1. AHAMMED BASHEER PANDIKASALA, S/O.IMBACHALI KUTTIYOTT HOUSE, VASZHAKKAD POST, MALAPPURAM-676 505. 2. BIJU.C, S/O.CHATHAN, AMBAYATHODU MALAYIL HOUSE, THAMARASSERY POST, KOZHIKODE 673 015. 3. THE UNITED INDIA ISURANCE CO. LTD, DIVISIONLA OFFICE, WHITE LINES BUILDINGS, KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001. ADV. SMT.R.REMA FOR R3 - S.C SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKKAD THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * *** M.A.C.A.No.1365 of 2011 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of October 2011 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **R.BASANT,J** Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for the personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 15/09/2007. He had suffered serious injuries. There was rupture of descending aorta at isthmus with haematoma. There was fracture of T9 vertebra and fracture of the 5[th] rib left. There was haemothorax. He was an in-patient from 15/09/2007 to 27/09/2007 (12 days). Surgery had to be conducted on 15/09/2007. Against a total claim of Rs.3,00,000/-, the tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.1,83,186/- as per the details given in paragraph 10 of the impugned award which we extract below: |**_Sl.No_**|**_Head of claim_**|**_Amount_** **_claimed (Rs.)_**|**_Amount_** **_awarded (Rs.)_**|**_Details_**| |---|---|---|---|---| |1.|Transport|4,000/-|750/-|--| |2.|Extra nourishment|3,000/-|1,000/-|---| |3.|Loss of earnings|50,000/-|6,000/-|3,000 x 2 months| |4.|Bystander's expenses|Nil|1,200/-|100x 12 days| |5|Treatment expenses|2,20,000/-|1,59,236/-|1,63,217- 3981| |6|Pain and suffering|30,000/-|12,000/-|--| 2 M.A.C.A.No.1365 of 2011 |**_Sl.No_**|**_Head of claim_**|**_Amount_** **_claimed (Rs.)_**|**_Amount_** **_awarded (Rs.)_**|**_Details_**| |---|---|---|---|---| |7|Loss of amenities|20,000/-|3,000/-|--| ||Total|**3,00,000/-**|**1,83,186/-**|**7% interest** **from** **25/08/2008**| 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. The impugned award is assailed on the short ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is not adequate. Only an amount of Rs.1,83,186/- has been awarded as compensation. The tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,59,236/- towards medical expenses only. The balance amount awarded is not at all adequate or sufficient compensation for the loss suffered by the claimant, submits learned counsel for the appellant. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that for loss of earnings, only an amount of Rs.6,000/- has been awarded. No better evidence is produced to prove the income of the appellant. The tribunal, in these circumstances, drew the presumption of prudence that Rs.3,000/- can, at any rate, be reckoned as the monthly income. We take note of the injuries. We take note of the period of hospitalisation. We take note of the surgical procedure 3 M.A.C.A.No.1365 of 2011 undergone. We are satisfied that it can safely be held that there must have been involuntary unemployment for a period of four months as a result of the injury and treatment. 4. For extra nourishment, only an amount of Rs.1,000/has been awarded. Considering the nature of injuries and the period of treatment as in-patient initially and later as out-patient, we are satisfied that a total amount of Rs.2,500/- can be awarded as compensation under the head of extra nourishment. For treatment expenses, an amount of Rs.1,59,236/- has been awarded and that amount is borne out by records. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal did not take into account the inevitable other expenses that must have resulted. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- can be awarded under the head of treatment expenses. 5. Under the head of pain and suffering and loss of amenities, only a total amount of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded (Rs.12,000/- + Rs.3,000/-). The learned counsel for the appellant contends that considering the nature of injuries, the period of treatment and the nature of surgical procedures undergone, the compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenities is too inadequate. We agree with the learned counsel for the 4 M.A.C.A.No.1365 of 2011 appellant. We are satisfied, considering the nature of injuries suffered to the aorta and the nature of surgical procedures undergone, we would be justified in awarding a total amount of Rs.25,000/- under the composite head of pain and suffering and loss of amenities. No physical disability is proved to have resulted. 6. We are not satisfied that the amount awarded under any other head deserves or warrants interference. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.23,264/- as compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the tribunal. |i)|Loss of earnings||Rs.6,000/-| |---|---|---|---| ||[Rs.12,000/- (Rs.3,000/- x 4)||| ||minus Rs.6,000/-]||| |ii)|Extra nourishment||Rs.1,500/-| ||(Rs.2,500/- minus Rs.1,000/-)||| |iii)|Treatment expenses||Rs.5,764/-| ||[Rs.1,65,000/- minus|Rs.1,59,236/-)|| |iv)|pain and suffering and loss||Rs.10,000/-| ||of amenities||| ||(Rs.25,000/- minus Rs.15,000/-)||| ||||---------------| |||Total|**Rs.23,264/-**| ||||=======| |7.|Only an amount of|Rs.1,500/- has|been awarded as| 5 M.A.C.A.No.1365 of 2011 costs. The learned counsel for the appellant contends and we agree that proportionate costs for the proceedings before the tribunal on the entire amount of compensation as held in J **eena v. Satheesh Babu.K [2011(3) KLT 943]** is liable to be awarded. 8. In the result, a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) Appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.23,264/- (Rupees twenty three thousand two hundred and sixty four only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as directed by the tribunal. d) Proportionate costs before the tribunal shall be paid as per the decision in **Jeena** (Supra). e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. ## **(R.BASANT, JUDGE)** ## **(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)** jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge M.A.C.A.No.1365 of 2011 6 M.A.C.A.No.1365 of 2011 7 8 M.A.C.A.No.1365 of 2011 **K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.** .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010