Back
2015 Supreme(Ker) 272
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.V.ASHA, JJ.
ASOKAN.P.K. – Appellant
Vs.
STEPHEN PINHEIRO AND ORS. – Respondent
M.A.C.A.No.2089 of 2014
Decided On : 09.04.2015
For the Appellant : SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM
For the Respondent: SRI.LEGY ABRAHAM, SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.), SMT.K.S.SANTHI, SC, SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for motor vehicle accident injuries, considering disability, monthly income, pain and sufferings, future treatment, and loss of expectation of life.
Headnote:
Injured Claimant - Motor Vehicle Accident - Compensation - [Motor Vehicle Accident] - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166] - The court discussed the assessment of disability, monthly income, compensation for pain and sufferings, future treatment, loss of expectation of life, and total compensation. The court relied on the legal provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the interpretation of disability and compensation in similar cases to reach its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an injured claimant, suffered serious injuries in a motor vehicle accident, resulting in total paralysis. The appellant sought modification of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, including disability assessment, monthly income, and various heads of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence, including medical certificates and bills, to determine the extent of disability, monthly income, and appropriate compensation for the claimant's pain and sufferings, future treatment, and loss of expectation of life. The court found that the appellant was entitled to higher compensation based on the severity of the injuries and the impact on the claimant's life.
Issues: Assessment of disability, monthly income, and compensation for various heads, including pain and sufferings, future treatment, and loss of expectation of life.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal principles established in similar cases and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to determine the appropriate compensation for the claimant, considering the nature and extent of the injuries and their impact on the claimant's life.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, enhanced the compensation, and directed the insurance company to deposit the amount within three months. The appellant was permitted to withdraw the amount and advised to keep it in a proper manner in a bank of his choice.
Ramachandran Nair, J.
The injured claimant is the appellant herein. It is a case where he has suffered serious injuries in an accident as a consequence of which he has become totally paralytic.
2. We heard the learned counsel on both sides.
3. The accident occurred on 27.03.2011. He was driving an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-07-BN-7195 along Varapuzha-Cheranaloor N.H.17 with two passengers. At 11.15 a.m. when he reached near Muttar- Kunumpuram Junction, a motorcar bearing registration No.TN/66A-6411 which was coming from the opposite direction while overtaking another vehicle, hit the front side of the autorickshaw. It caused the autorickshaw to turn turtle and the appellant as well as the other passengers sustained severe injuries. He was taken to AIMS, Ernakulam and admitted in ICU and treated there. The appellant was aged 43 years at the time of the accident. It was claimed that his monthly income was 12,000/-. Before the Tribunal below, detailed evidence was adduced by producing Exts.A1 to A17 and the claimant's wife was examined as PW1. Ext.C1 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board attached to the Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha, which will shows that he has sustained 90% disability.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted by referring to the various documents that the appellant has become paralytic below hip. He is unable to sit himself in the bed and he is confined to the bed. It is submitted that he requires the help of two others even to lift himself and to meet his daily needs. It is submitted that under this situation, the Tribunal should have assessed the disability at 100%. Presently it is assessed at 90%. It is also submitted that the compensation awarded towards various heads also requires modification. As against the total claim of Rs. 40,00,000/-, the Tribunal has granted Rs. 16,85,800/.
5. The discharge summary, Ext.A4 proves that he had sustained various injuries to his leg and spinal cord, which resulted in UMN bladder, constipation, high paraplegia, autonomic dysreflexia and neuropathic pain. He was admitted on 27.03.2011 in the hospital and discharged on 30.05.2011. It shows that he was in the hospital for more than two months. It also shows that he has sustained injuries to his nerves and he was suffering from paralysis of the right upper limb and his total sensory loss below T4. Ext.A11 certificate issued by Dr.Surendran, AIMS, Ernakulam, shows that he had sustained fracture C7 Vertebra with grade 1 Listhesis C7 over TI, fracture shaft femur right an open dislocation of 1st and 2nd MTP Joints left. In addition to that he had sustained ASIA-A spinal cord injury resulting in high paraplegia with UMN bladder and constipation.
6. In the disability certificate Ext.C1, it was noted that there is a total loss of mobility and stability component of both lower limbs. This will show evidently that he is leading a vegetate life now.
7. The Tribunal has granted compensation under various heads as already noticed. For non-production of the registration book, the Tribunal did not accept the case that he was the owner of autorickshaw. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that before the Tribunal a copy of the driving license was produced as Ext.A6. Before this Court, the details showing the ownership of the vehicle have been produced as Annexure A1 along with I.A.No.1066/2015. It will show that against the owner's name, the appellant's name is there. He is the owner from 21.06.2010 of the vehicle having registration No.KL-07-BN- 7195.
8. Now we will come to the specific items of claims. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal omitted to grant an amount more than Rs. 9,500/- covering the medical bills, we find that the total amount was quantified by the Tribunal as Rs. 4,69,531.45 covered by Ext.A9 series of medical bil
