Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 53828
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Ziyad Rahman A. A, J
MOHAMMED FAYAZ – Appellant
Versus
A.YOGESH KUMAR – Respondent
MACA 1816/2011
R.PADMAKUMARI R.PADMAKUMAR
Compensation for injuries must reflect the victim's disability and future earning potential, ensuring just compensation in motor accident claims.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 168 - Compensation for injuries sustained by a minor in a motor accident - Tribunal awarded Rs.8,67,568/- with 8% interest; appeal seeks enhancement due to serious injuries and subsequent death - Tribunal's calculation of compensation for disability deemed inadequate, requiring reassessment based on established disability and future earning potential. (Paras 8, 10, 11, 12)
(B) Appeal - Scope of review - Appellate court may reassess compensation based on established facts and precedents, ensuring just compensation for the injured party. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The claimants sought compensation for a minor boy who suffered serious injuries in an accident on 14.10.2005, resulting in 100% disability and subsequent death on 15.05.2016. The Tribunal awarded Rs.8,67,568/- as compensation, which the appellants deemed inadequate.
Findings of Court:
The court found the Tribunal's compensation for disability and bystander expenses insufficient and reassessed the total additional compensation to Rs.17,25,000/-.
Issues: The main issues were the adequacy of compensation for disability and bystander expenses, and the link between medical expenses and the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the compensation must reflect the victim's 100% disability and future earning potential, emphasizing the need for adequate bystander expenses based on established precedents.
Result: Appeal allowed with additional compensation granted and matter remanded for further consideration of medical expenses.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over negligence and compensation (Para 2) |
| 2. assessment of evidence and compensation (Para 8) |
| 3. reassessment of compensation (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT
This appeal arises from O.P(M.V) No. 59/2006 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod. The said claim petition was submitted by the claimants seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to the 1st claimant, a minor boy aged five years, represented by the 2nd claimant, his father. The claim pertains to the compensation for the injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 14.10.2005 when he was knocked down by a car bearing registration No.MH-01 T 9054. The said car was driven by the 1st respondent owned by the 2nd respondent and was insured with the 3rd respondent. Consequent to the accident, the 1st claimant suffered very serious injuries and became bedridden. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances seeking compensation.
2. The 1st respondent filed a written statement denying the negligence on his part. The quantum of compensation was also disputed by them. It was also contended that the vehicle driven by him was validly insured with the 3rd respondent and if at all there is any liability, that has to be indemnified by 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent filed a written statement admitting the accident but disputing the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. It was also contended that at the time of the accident 1st respondent, driver was not having proper driving licence. The quantum of compensation was also disputed by them.
3. The evidence in this case consist of PWs 1 to 4 and Exts.A1 to A16 from the side of the appellant. The disability certificate issued by the Medical Board was marked as Ext. X1. After the trial, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent in driving the car and being the insurer, the 3rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.8,67,568/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited by the 3rd respondent with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and with proportionate cost. This appeal is submitted by the appellant in such circumstances seeking enhancement of compensation.
4. Heard Smt. Padmakumari, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.P Jacob Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.
5. The main contest in this case relates to the quantum of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is a case in which a five years old boy sustained very serious injuries which resulted in 100% disability. It is also pointed out that the injuries sustained to him led to his premature death on 15.05.2016 i.e, after more than ten years of the accident. Despite the same, the Tribunal did not award adequate compensation, particularly under the head of disability as well as bystander expenses.
6. It was also contended that the petitioners incurred huge amounts for meeting the expenses for providing continuous treatment to the victim till he died on 15.05.2013. The appellants have also produced Annexures A1 to A301, the medical bills evidencing the expenses of treatment along with the appeal .
7. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent stoutly opposes the said prayer. It was pointed out that the Tribunal awarded a very reasonable compensation, and no interference is required. As far as the future treatment expenses claimed by the appellants on the strength of the bills produced along with the appeal are concerned, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent contends that the same as such cannot be accepted. Since the appellants have to establish the link between the said bill with the injuries sustained by the original claimant in the said accident, the said examination cannot be done in a proceeding relating to an appeal, and it is a matter of evidence.
8. I h
