High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2016-05-20Appeal partly allowed; enhanced compensation of...

N.P. Abdullakoya v. Sudeer and National Insurance Company Limited

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No. 941 of 2011

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.T. Ravikumar
K. P. Jyothindranath
Judgment Date: 2016-05-20
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is partly allowed. The Tribunal’s award is enhanced by Rs. 30,000, in addition to the original Rs. 50,385, with 7% interest from the date of petition till realization. The insurer’s liability is not explicitly expanded beyond the enhanced amount, and there is no costs order. The first respondent is directed to pay the enhanced total within three months of the judgment.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed; enhanced compensation of Rs. 30,000 over and above the Tribunal’s award; 7% interest from the date of petition till realization; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

N.P. Abdullakoya

Respondents

Sudeer
National Insurance Company Limited

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

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

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Mathews Jacob (Sr.)
• Sri. P. Jacob Mathew

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal arises from Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, challenging the award dated 17 May 2010 in OP(MV) No.1408/2006. The appellant, N.P. Abdullakoya, sustained grievous injuries when a motorcycle, KL-12A-5590, allegedly owned by the rider and insured, knocked him down on Mavoor Road in the evening of 25 August 2005. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,385 as compensation against the claim of Rs. 1,00,000. The appellant argued that the insurer was exonerated because the vehicle was uninsured with the company; additionally, the Tribunal considered the claimant’s monthly income as Rs. 2,500, which was inadequately low for calculation purposes. The appellant asserted that higher compensation was warranted and income should be assessed in light of Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236, which approved a higher monthly income for a similar class of work. The respondents contended there was no policy with the insurer and that the Tribunal’s findings were correct. The Court reassesses several heads of claim, increases the monthly income to Rs. 4,500, and computes enhanced sums across several categories, ultimately directing payment of an additional Rs. 30,000 with 7% interest and no costs. The overall effect is an enhanced total award beyond the original Tribunal amount."

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal exonerated the insurer on the ground that there was no policy with the company, which cannot stand. The claimant was a head-load worker and the Tribunal only considered a monthly income of Rs. 2,500, which is inadequately low for calculating compensation. The appellant relies on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236 to justify increasing the monthly income to Rs. 4,500. Bykara bystander and other heads were under-compensated; the claimant seeks re-assessment and higher compensation under various heads, including loss of earning, permanent disability, and attendant expenses, and seeks a recomputation that would yield a higher total amount; the insurer’s liability should be clarified and the compensation augmented accordingly.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that there was no insurance policy for the vehicle and the insurer is exonerated. The Tribunal’s finding is correct and should not be interfered with. The claim was rightly limited to the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 50,385; the assailed increase proposed by the appellant is unwarranted; there is no basis to disturb the insurer’s position or the adjudicated heads of compensation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	The court relies on this decision to justify increasing the claimant’s monthly income from Rs. 2,500 to Rs. 4,500 for computation of 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 N.P. Abdullakoya v. Sudeer and National Insurance Company Limited 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 C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2016/20TH VAISAKHA 1938 MACA.No. 941 of 2011 ( ) ------------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1408/2006 of M.A.C.T., KOZHIKODE DATED 17-05-2010 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER IN OP(MV): ------------------------------------------ N.P.ABDULLAKOYA S/O.SAIDALI, PUTHIYANGADI, PALLIKANDY, HOUSE NO.25, P.O.PAVANGAD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS.SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN SMT.P.Y.SHEHEERA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV): ------------------------------------------------ 1. SUDEER, S/O.DARMAJAN MANJAMKUZHI HOUSE, P.O.NENMENI S.BATHERY, WYNAD-673121 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, NOOR COMPLEX, P.B.NO.811, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673001 R2 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR** ## **&** ## **K. P. JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ. ========================== M.A.C.A. No.941 OF 2011 ==========================** Dated this the 20[th] day of May, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** _Jyothindranath, J._ This appeal is filed by the injured-claimant in O.P.(MV). No.1408 of 2006 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The challenge is against award dated 17.05.2010, made therein. 2.The case of the appellant is that on 25.08.2005 at about 10 p.m., while he was standing on the side of Mavoor Road, in front of Sagar Hotel, a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-12A-5590 came and knocked him down and he sustained grievous injuries. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle, the appellant herein filed the above referred claim petition for **M.A.C.A.941/2011** 2 an amount of `1,00,000/- before the Tribunal arraying the RC owner of the vehicle as respondent No.1 and the insurance company as respondent No.2. The Tribunal awarded a sum of `50,385/-. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal preferred. 3.When the appeal came up for hearing, the counsel appearing for the appellant submitted before us that the insurance company was exonerated by the Tribunal on the ground that, at the relevant point of time, the vehicle was not insured with the company. It is also submitted before us that the appellant was a Head load worker by profession and the Tribunal considered only `2,500/- as his monthly income for calculation purposes. It is also submitted that on other heads also, only inadequate compensation was awarded by the Tribunal. 4.We heard the counsel for the insurance company. The counsel submitted before us that there was no insurance policy for the vehicle and the company was exonerated. There is nothing to interfere with the said finding. **M.A.C.A.941/2011** 3 5.The factual facts relevant for deciding this appeal are as follows:- Even though on various heads the appellant claimed a total amount of `2,66,000/-, the claim was limited to `1,00,000/-. The accident occurred on 25.08.2005 at 10 p.m. The vehicle involved is a motor cycle. Even though notice was sent to the first respondent, the owner-cum-rider of the vehicle, there is no appearance before this Court. After going through the award, we feel that the monthly income of the appellant/claimant considered by the Tribunal is on a lower side. As per the decision in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.** [ **(2011) 13 SCC 236],** it can be seen that the Apex Court considered an income of `4,500/- in the case of a coolie who met with an accident in the year 2004. Thus, it will only be just and proper to consider at least `4,500/- as the monthly income of the appellant for calculation purposes. Even though the claimant was treated as inpatient for 37 **M.A.C.A.941/2011** 4 days, only a sum of `3,700/- is seen awarded towards bystanders expenses. We are of the opinion that, at least `200/- should have been taken towards expenses of bystander, for a day. When monthly income is considered as `4,500/-, on the head of loss of earning, the compensation awarded is inadequate. Thus, the compensation awarded is re-assessed by granting additional amounts as follows:- |**Heads of claims**|**Amount** **claimed** (in Rupees)|**Amount** **allowed** (in Rupees)|**Amount** **enhanced** (in Rupees)| |---|---|---|---| |Transportation to hospital|3000|300|700| |Extra nourishment|2000|300|nil| |Treatment expenses|80000|4085|nil| |Bystanders expenses|nil|3700|3700| |Loss of earning|40000|5000|4000| |Pain and suffering|30000|10000|nil| |Permanent disability|80000|27000|21600 (4500x12x50x 6/100=48600- 27000)| |**Total**|266000 limited to 1,00,000|50385|30000 =====| **M.A.C.A.941/2011** 5 The total additional compensation awarded will come to `30,000/-. Thus, it is held that the appellant/petitioner will be entitled for an enhanced amount of `30,000/- over and above the . compensation already awarded The first respondent is directed to pay the amount within three months of this judgment. Additional compensation will bear interest on the very same rate awarded by the Tribunal, i.e., 7%, from the date of the petition till realisation. There will be no order as to costs. ## **Sd/-** ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR** **(JUDGE)** **Sd/-** **K. P. JYOTHINDRANATH** ## **(JUDGE)** **spc/** **M.A.C.A.941/2011** 6 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **M.A.C.A.941/2011** 7 **JUDGMENT September, 2010** # **M.A.C.A.941/2011** 8