Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 48009
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, K.HEMA, JJ
SUDHEER D S – Appellant
Versus
GOPINATHAN KARTHA & OTHERS – Respondent
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL 2550/2008
['K JANARDHANAN']
In assessing compensation for accident victims, the courts must consider the long-term medical needs indicated by reliable medical evidence.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Vehicle Accident - Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 166, 168 - The court affirmed the Tribunal's finding of negligence and adjusted the compensation for future medical expenses based on the severity of the injuries sustained by the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident caused by the negligent driving of the second respondent. Initially claiming ₹2,07,000 for damages, the appeal sought an enhanced amount of ₹10,71,000 after the Tribunal awarded ₹1,60,000.
Finding of the Court:
The court agreed with the Tribunal's assessment of the accident's cause and the awarded compensation for most aspects. However, it found the allocation for future medical expenses inadequate and increased it accordingly.
Issues: Whether the compensation awarded for future medical expenses was sufficient given the evidence of ongoing medical needs?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that compensation should reflect the actual medical needs resulting from the accident, ensuring that victims receive adequate support for future treatment.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed, increasing the compensation by ₹15,500 with future interest.
J U D G M E N T
Gopinathan,J.
The appellant is the petitioner in O.P. (MV) No.3225/2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam.
2. On 8.3.2001, while the appellant riding on the pillion of a motor cycle along Palarivattom-Kakkanad road near Varkey's Bakery, Palarivattom, he was hit down by a car owned, driven and insured by respondents 1 to 3 and as a result, he sustained bodily injuries and had undergone treatment at Ernakulam Medical Centre.
3. Attributing negligence against the 2nd respondent, the appellant filed the above petition before the Tribunal seeking a sum of `.2,07,000/- as compensation. Subsequently, the petition was amended whereby the claim for compensation was enhanced to `.10,71,000/-.
4. Second respondent did not file any written statement.
Respondents 1 and 3 filed written statement, attributing negligence against the appellant. Age, occupation, monthly income and other details stated by the appellant were put to strict proof and further contended that the claim made in the petition is excessive and dis-proportionate to the injuries sustained.
5. During enquiry, the appellant was examined as PW1.
Exts.A1 to A9 were marked. Copy of the policy was marked as Ext.B1.
6. On appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident occurred because of the negligent driving of the car by the 2nd respondent and hence respondents 1 to 3 are liable to pay compensation to the appellant. Towards compensation, a sum of `1,60,500/- was assessed and award was passed rounding to `1,60,000/-. Split up details are as follows:
Head Amount awarded Transportation, hospitalisation, attendant expenses, Extra nourishment and damage to clothings. `. 7000 Medical Expenses `. 75,500 Loss of earnings `. 18,000 Pain and suffering `. 25,000 For discomforts & inconveniences, loss of amenities and expectation in life `. 25,000 Future medical expenses and nursing `. 10,000 --------------------
Total `.1,60,500/-
rounded to `.1,60,000/-
=========
Challenging the inadequacy of the above award, this appeal is preferred.
7. We have heard Adv.Sri.Manuraj. K.J, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Adv.Smt.Santhi.K.S, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. Perused the impugned order as well as the evidence on record.
8. On carefully going through the evidence and the compensation awarded, we are of opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards transportation, hospitalisation, medical expenses, loss of earnings, pain and suffering, for discomforts and inconvenience, loss of amenities and expectation in life, is just and reasonable. But having regard to Ext.A7, we are of opinion that the compensation awarded towards future medical expenses and nursing is too low. Ext.A7 reads as follows:
“Mr.Sudheer, 29 years, Hosp. No.130520, a known case of post-traumatic epilepsy on medication, was admitted here on 06.01.2003 with a diagnosis of generalized seizures not responding to routine drugs. He was evaluated by a CT head, which showed gliotic region (L) temporal lobe. He was managed by elective ventilation relaxants and other supportive measures. He needs prolonged medication for the control of seizures.”
From Ext.A7-certificate issued by the Consultant Neurosurgeon, we find that the petitioner had to undergo prolonged medication for control of seizures. Therefore, we are of opinion that a further sum of `15,000/- is to be awarded to the appellant towards future medical expenses and nursing. Though the Tribunal had assessed the sum of `.1,60,500/- as compensation, it was rounded to `1,60,000/-. We find no justification for rounding the sum by reducing `.500/-. Therefore we find that the appellant is entitled to a further sum of ` 500/- also.
10. In the result, this appeal is allowed. There would be a direction to the 3rd respondent to pay a sum of ` 15,500/- as additional compensation to the appellant with future interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition til
