Sujith S. v. Priyemvadan, Tomy P.J. and The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

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 27,143 over the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, with total compensation carrying interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition to realization. Proportionate costs are to be paid as per Jeena v. Satheesh Babu (supra). All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sujith S., S/o Sugunan

Respondents

Priyemvadan, S/o Chellappan
Tomy P.J., S/o Chinnamma John
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Alappuzha Branch

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri A. T. Anilkumar
• Smt. V. ShyLaja

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Titus Mani (for R-3)
• Sri George Cheriyan (Thiruvalla)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is an appeal under MACA by the claimant Sujith S. challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 04/02/2005. The Tribunal had awarded Rs 30,807 against a claim of Rs 1,60,000, disallowing several heads such as loss of earnings, damage to clothing, and certain medical expenses, while granting a modest sum for pain and suffering. The appellant contends that the accident disabled him as a skilled lathe worker and caused four months of involuntary unemployment, with an estimated monthly income of Rs 3,500, a figure derived by the court for computation. He argues that additional elements should have been compensated, including loss of earnings (Rs 14,000 for four months), damage to clothing (Rs 1,000), and medical/other expenses (Rs 2,143) for follow-up or future treatment, along with a higher award for pain and suffering (Rs 10,000). The respondents, including the insurance company, are present in defense. The High Court agrees the original award was deficient and enhances the compensation on multiple heads, directing payment of Rs 27,143 more, plus interest at 7.5% per annum on the total amount from petition date to realization. It also directs payment of proportionate costs as per the decision in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu. All other Tribunal directions remain intact, and the appeal is allowed in part.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation for loss of earnings, damage to clothing, and certain medical expenses. He contended his earnings as a skilled lathe worker should be taken at Rs 3,500 per month, with four months of involuntary unemployment resulting from the injury; sought enhanced compensation for pain and suffering, and reimbursement of nails removal treatment expenses. He also urged interest on the total award and proportionate costs.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents, including the insurance company, supported the Tribunal’s award or resisted excessive enhancement, emphasizing that liability and quantum should reflect the evidence; they argued for the defendable overall compensation and adhered to the Tribunal’s directions on liability and costs.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K	2011(3) KLT 943	Positive	Cited as the controlling authority for awarding proportionate costs; the High Court applies this precedent to direct costs in favor of the appellant.

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. 1461 of 2011() ----------------------OPMV.1161/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... ## APPELLANT/PETITIONER - -------------- SUJITH.S, S/O.SUGUNAN, AGED 32 YEARS, KONATTU VEEDU, CSP WARD NO.8, CHERTHALA SOUTH PANCHAYATH. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS - --------------- 1. PRIYEMVADAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, KALIYANATTU THATHWAMASI, MNP WARD 2, KANICHUKULANGARA P.O., CHERTHALA PIN - 688 544. 2. TOMY P.J. S/O. CHINNAMMA JOHN, POLLAYIL, MSP WARD II, PATHIRAPPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA - PIN 688 521. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., ALAPPUZHA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, ALAPPUZHA PIN - 688 001. - ADV. SRI.TITUS MANI FOR R-3 SC SRI.GEORGE CHERIYAN (THIRUVALLA) 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.1461 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 04/02/2005. He had suffered fracture of the left femur in addition to other injuries. There was skin loss with multiple wounds over the left elbow. He was an in-patient for a total period of 11 days. There is nothing to show that he has suffered any permanent disability. The tribunal, by the impugned award, against a total claim of Rs.1,60,000/- directed payment of an amount of Rs.30,807/- as per the details given in paragraph 12 which we extract below: |**_Head_**|**_Amount_** **_Claimed (Rs.)_**|**_Amount_** **_allowed (Rs.)_**|**_Remarks_**| |---|---|---|---| |Transport to Hospital|1,200/-|750/-|| |Extra nourishment|3,000/-|2,200/-|11 days @ Rs.200/-)| |Treatment expenses|32,500/-|17,857/-|| |pain and suffering|40,000/-|10,000/-|| |Total amounts claimed Rs.1,60,000/-||**30,807/-**|| 2 M.A.C.A No.1461 of 2011 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent/insurance company who has been made entirely liable under the impugned award. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on the short ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is not sufficient. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all points out that no compensation whatsoever has been awarded under the head of loss of earnings. The appellant was employed as a lathe worker. The accident had taken place on 04/02/2005. No better evidence is produced to prove his actual monthly earnings. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that, at any rate, Rs.3,500/- can be reckoned as the monthly income of the appellant, a skilled worker. We are, further satisfied that there must have been involuntary unemployment for a period of four months consequent to the injury suffered and taking into consideration the nature of employment of the appellant. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering (Rs.10,000/-) is grossly inadequate. No 3 M.A.C.A No.1461 of 2011 compensation has been awarded under the head of loss of amenities as there was no permanent disability. Pain and suffering, inconvenience etc. endured during the period of treatment as an in-patient and out-patient must be taken into consideration when we fix the quantum of compensation payable under the head of pain and suffering. We are satisfied that the appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation under the head of pain and suffering. No compensation has been awarded under the head of damage to clothing and articles. Even in the absence of better evidence, Rs.1,000/- can be awarded as compensation under the head of damage to clothing and articles. 5. An amount of Rs.17,857/- has been awarded under the head of medical expenses. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that K nailing was done as revealed from the discharge summary. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, subsequently, the appellant had to admitted to the hospital for removal of the said nails. It is the case of the appellant that expenses had incurred for removal of K nails. He was admitted on 31/7/2007 and discharged on 11/08/2007, it is submitted. Bills, documents etc. are admitted to be shown to the courts to prove expenses incurred for such procedure in the year 2007. 4 M.A.C.A No.1461 of 2011 6. We note that only a total amount of Rs.17,857/- has been awarded as compensation for in-patient and subsequent out-patient treatment given. We take note of the requirement of subsequent procedures for removal of the nails. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of medical/treatment expenses can also be enhanced. 7. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.27,143/- as compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the tribunal. i) Loss of earnings Rs.14,000/(No amount awarded by the tribunal) (Rs.3,500/- x 4) ii) Damage to clothing and articles Rs.1,000/(No amount awarded by the tribunal) iii) Medical and miscellaneous expenses Rs.2,143/including future treatment (Rs.20,000/- minus Rs.17,857/-) iv) pain and suffering Rs.10,000/(including loss of amenities during the period of treatment) (Rs.20,000/- minus Rs.10,000/-) -----------------Total **Rs.27,143/-** ======= 5 M.A.C.A No.1461 of 2011 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that interest has been awarded only at the rate of 6% per annum. The learned counsel argues and we agree that interest is liable to be awarded at a higher rate. We direct payment of interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the entire amount of compensation from the date of the petition to the date of realisation. 9. No proportionate costs has been awarded by the tribunal. We are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled for proportionate costs. We direct that proportionate costs has to be awarded by the tribunal as per the decision in J **eena v. Satheesh Babu.K [2011(3) KLT 943]** on the entire amount of compensation. 9. In the result, - a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) Appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.27,143/- (Rupees twenty seven thousand one hundred and forty three 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 of 7.5% per annum M.A.C.A No.1461 of 2011 6 from the date of the petition to the date of payment/realisation. d) Proportionate costs for the proceedings 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.1461 of 2011 7 8 M.A.C.A No.1461 of 2011 **K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.** .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010