Sunil T.R vs Smijosh

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Apr 01, 2019

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1913281

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1913281
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar
Decided On: Apr 01, 2019
Case Number: MACA/3427/2017

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sunil T.R

Respondent

Smijosh

Excerpt

..... indicates that the claimant is m.a.c.a.no. 3427 of 2017 -3-suffering from moderately severe hearing loss in right ear and minimal hearing loss in left ear. the compensation payable tothe claimant has to be assessed based on the aforesaid factsand documents.5. the tribunal has reckoned the monthly income ofthe claimant at the rate of rs.3,500/- for the purpose of computing the compensation payable to him. according to me, in so far as the accident took place on 27.11.2005, the monthly income of the claimant should have been reckoned atleast at rs.5,000/- . if that be so, the claimant is entitled to a further sum of rs.4,500/-towards loss of earnings for the peiod of three months granted by the tribunal. towards the compensation for continuing hearing disability, the tribunal has granted only a sum of rs.50,000/-. having regard to the materials on record, i am of the view that the claimant should have been granted a sum of rs.1,00,000/-. if that be so, the claimant is entitled to afurther sum of rs.50,000/- under this head. in so far as the claimant is suffering from hearing loss, he claimed compensation for loss of marriage prospects and the tribunal has granted a sum of rs.10,000/- under this head. it is seen that it is against a claim of rs. 25,000/- that the claimant was granted the aforesaid amount by way of compensation. m.a.c.a.no. 3427 of 2017 -4- according to me, the claimant is entitled, in the facts of the present case,the entire amount claimed by him. in other words, the claimant is entitled to a further sum of rs.15,000/- towards compensation for loss of marriage prospects. the compensation granted by the tribunal under other heads are in order. the claimant is thus entitled to a total sum of rs.69,500/- towards additional compensation.in the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award of the tribunal is modified granting a further sum of rs.69,500/- to the claimant by way of additional compensation. needless to say, the.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1941 M.A.C.A.No. 3427 of 2017 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 30-09-2016 IN O.P.(MV) 455/2008 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT -IV, THRISSUR APPELLANT/PETITIONER: SUNIL T.R., S/O. RAGHAVAN, AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT THONIPARAMBIL HOUSE, THOTTAPPADI, KUTTANELLUR P.O., THRISSUR TALUK. (NOW RESIDING AT P.O.KANNARA, ASSARYKAD, PAYYANAM, THRISSUR - 680 652) BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.P.S.APPU RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4: 1 SMIJOSH, S/O. GOPI, RESIDING AT KUNNATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUVANKULANGARA, OLLUR P.O., THRISSUR TALUK, PIN - 680 306. 2 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SIMIS COMPLEX, KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 001. 3 VIJAYAN, RESIDING AT NADUVATH HOUSE, P.O.ENAMAVU, THRISSUR - 680 510. BY ADV. SMT.P.A.REZIYA SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No. 3427 of 2017 -2-

JUDGMENT

The claimant in a proceedings for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has come up in this appeal challenging the inadequacy of the compensation.

2. It is stated in the claim petition that the claimant was a goldsmith. He was aged 26 years at the time of accident. He sustained injuries in a motor accident took place on 27.11.2005. The claim in the proceedings was for Rs.4,00,000/-. The Tribunal, in terms of the award impugned in the appeal, granted a sum of Rs.1,34,600/- by way of compensation to the claimant. The claimant is aggrieved by the said award.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. The claimant sustained various injuries in the

accident including fracture of the mastoid part of the temporal bone and also the occipital bone. After the accident, it was noticed that there was profuse bleeding from both the ears of the claimant. He was admitted in the hospital for eighteen days. Ext.A8 report issued to the claimant from Sun Medical and

   Research   Centre,    Department      of   Audiography   &   Speech
   Language Pathology, Thrissur       indicates that the claimant is
M.A.C.A.No. 3427 of 2017          -3-

suffering from moderately severe hearing loss in right ear and minimal hearing loss in left ear. The compensation payable to

the claimant has to be assessed based on the aforesaid facts

and documents.

5. The Tribunal has reckoned the monthly income of

the claimant at the rate of Rs.3,500/- for the purpose of computing the compensation payable to him. According to me, in so far as the accident took place on 27.11.2005, the monthly income of the claimant should have been reckoned atleast at Rs.5,000/- . If that be so, the claimant is entitled to a further sum of Rs.4,500/-towards loss of earnings for the peiod of three months granted by the Tribunal. Towards the compensation for continuing hearing disability, the Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Having regard to the materials on record, I am of the view that the claimant should have been granted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. If that be so, the claimant is entitled to a

further sum of Rs.50,000/- under this head. In so far as the claimant is suffering from hearing loss, he claimed compensation for loss of marriage prospects and the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- under this head. It is seen that it is against a claim of Rs. 25,000/- that the claimant was granted the aforesaid amount by way of compensation. M.A.C.A.No. 3427 of 2017 -4- According to me, the claimant is entitled, in the facts of the present case,the entire amount claimed by him. In other words, the claimant is entitled to a further sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for loss of marriage prospects. The compensation granted by the Tribunal under other heads are in order. The claimant is thus entitled to a total sum of Rs.69,500/- towards additional compensation.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award of the Tribunal is modified granting a further sum of Rs.69,500/- to the claimant by way of additional compensation. Needless to say, the claimant will be entitled to interest for the additional amount of compensation at the rate of 7.5%. It is, however, made clear that the claimant will not be entitled to interest for the additional compensation for 210 days of delay in filing the appeal, as ordered by this Court on 15.11.2017 in C.M.Application No.3921 of 2017. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2019 Same Parties Sunil T.R vs Smijosh Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar