The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd vs Latha C.Pillai
2021 Latest Caselaw 24014 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
SATURDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA,
                             1943
                  MACA NO. 1941 OF 2012
 AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV.NO.3723/1997 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
                CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:

         THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
         M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-35, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT
         MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-
         18.
         BY ADV SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)


RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:

         LATHA C.PILLAI
         W/O.K.K.CHANDRAN NAIR, KULATHALA HOUSE,
         TRICHATTUKULAM P.O., CHERTHALA, PIN-688 581.
         BY ADVS.
         SMT.M.MANJU
         SRI.K.R.RANJITH
         SRI.R.SUDHISH


     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 18.12.2021 M.A.C.A.NO.1136/2013, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 M.A.C.A.No.1941/2012 &
M.A.C.A.No.1136 of 2013              2


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
SATURDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA,
                                  1943
                          MACA NO. 1136 OF 2013
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 22.06.2012 IN OPMV.NO.3723/1997 OF
            MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

             LATHA.C.PILLAI, AGED 42 YEARS,
             W/O.K.K.CHANDRAN NAIR, KULATHALA HOUSE,
             TRICHATTUKULAM PO, CHERTHALA,PIN 688 581.
             BY ADVS.
             SRI.R.SUDHISH
             SRI.P.P.MUSTHAFA
             SMT.M.MANJU
             SRI.K.R.RANJITH


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

      1      K.N.DINESH, VRINDAVAN COLLEGE, EDAPPALLY PO,
             COCHIN 682 024.
      2      N.A.FRANCIS
             S/O.AUGUSTINE, NELLIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
             THEKKEVATTAPPILLY PARAMBA, BEHIND OF MAMANGALAM
             CHURCH, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN 682 024.
      3      THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
             BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE,
             MUTHOOT TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN 682 035.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN SR.
             SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
             SMT.K.S.SANTHI FOR R3
       THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 18.12.2021 ALONG WITH M.A.C.A.NO.1941/2012, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 M.A.C.A.No.1941/2012 &
M.A.C.A.No.1136 of 2013                3




                       A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
              ================================
                       M.A.C.A.No.1941 of 2012
                                   and
                       M.A.C.A.No.1136 of 2013
              ================================
               Dated this the 18th day of December, 2021


                              JUDGMENT

M.A.C.A.No.1941 of 2012 is an appeal at the instance of

the 3rd respondent in O.P(MV).No.3723 of 1997 on the file of the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The petitioner in

the above O.P(MV) has preferred M.A.C.A.No.1136 of 2013.

2. Brief facts :

On 21.09.1997 at about 5 p.m, while one Latha C.Pillai, the

petitioner, was walking along Edappally-B.T.C road, a

motorcycle bearing No.KL-7/Q 6283 rode by the 2 nd respondent

in rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit her. The

petitioner sustained severe injuries and she was taken to M.A.C.A.No.1941/2012 &

Ernakulam Medical Centre and was treated as inpatient. From

there, she continued her treatment in Medical College Hospital,

Kottayam. Accordingly, she approached the Tribunal under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and claimed

compensation. Initially the Tribunal granted Rs.2,28,000/- as

compensation and the matter was taken in appeal before this

Court in M.A.C.A.No.671 of 2006. As per order in

M.A.C.A.No.671/2006, a Division Bench of this Court remanded

the matter for fresh disposal after considering the entire evidence

including additional evidence, if any, adduced after remand. The

crux of the remand order would go to show that the remand was

for reconsideration of the amount of compensation.

3. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, the

appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1941 of 2012 submitted that the order

of remand passed by the Division Bench of this Court is not an

open remand and the disability alone was ordered to be

considered. However, the Tribunal re-assessed and granted M.A.C.A.No.1941/2012 &

Rs.4,31,627/- as compensation against the spirit of the remand

order. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the remand order does not say that the remand was for

any limited purpose. On perusal of the remand order, the

following portions in para.4 and 5 are relevant. Therefore, the

same is extracted here under:

"4. ...... Because of the present physical incapacity, she will have to strain more for continuing in the job. On compensating the same, the learned Tribunal could have adopted a scientific method to arrive at the quantum of compensation payable to physical/future disability. The proper method is to fix a notional income for the specific purpose of computing the compensation for permanent disability and to arrive at the quantum by adopting the correct multiplier and a reasonable percentage of disability. As the matter is being sent back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, we leave it to be decided by the Tribunal.

5. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the award is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal after considering the entire evidence including the additional evidence, if any, adduced by both sides."

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the insurance

company that subsequently a review order also was passed. In

fact, the review order also does not say that the remand order was M.A.C.A.No.1941/2012 &

for any limited purpose. Thus the contention raised by the

learned counsel for the insurance company that the Tribunal

could not re-assess the compensation in view of the remand order

cannot be accepted. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

insurance company further that the Tribunal went wrong in

granting interest from the date of petition for Rs.40,000/- granted

under the head future treatment. In order to address this

challenge, I have perused the award. The award would show that

Rs.40,000/- was granted for future treatment. In fact, no interest

is liable to be granted for the amount granted under the head

future treatment. In this regard, the insurance company is right in

arguing that granting interest from the date of petition in so far as

Rs.40,000/- under the head future treatment is wrong. Therefore,

the said finding is interfered and M.A.C.A.No.1941 of 2012 is

allowed in part accordingly.

5. Coming to M.A.C.A.No.1136 of 2013, the learned

counsel for the petitioner argued to convince this Court that the M.A.C.A.No.1941/2012 &

Tribunal granted lesser amount than what is entitled. But the

learned counsel miserably failed to convince this Court under

what heads the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in an

accident of the year 1997 is insufficient. On scrutiny of the

award, I could gather that the Tribunal granted just and

reasonable compensation in all heads. However, I am inclined to

consider only one count. Under the head loss of amenities and

enjoyment in life, Rs.25,000/- alone was granted by the Tribunal,

though the petitioner sustained serious injuries led to 10%

disability. Therefore, I am inclined to grant Rs.10,000/- more

under the head loss of amenities and enjoyment in life and I do

so.

6. Accordingly, M.A.C.A.No.1136 of 2013 is allowed in

part by granting Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as

enhanced compensation and the award impugned is modified as

above with the same rate of interest granted by the Tribunal from

the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation. The M.A.C.A.No.1941/2012 &

insurance company is directed to deposit the same in the

name of the petitioner within two months from today and the

petitioner is at liberty to release the same, on deposit.

M.A.C.A.No.1941 of 2012 is allowed in part and thereby it

is ordered that Rs.40,000/- covered by the award amount shall not

carry any interest from the date of petition till 22.06.2012, if the

amount is deposited within a period of 3 months thereafter. If the

amount is not deposited within a period of 3 months from

26.02.2012, the same shall carry interest @ 8% per annum.

Sd/-

(A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE) rtr/