Monday, 20, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Shahina Khanam vs Riyz Khan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6881 Ker

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6881 Ker
Judgement Date : 14 June, 2022

Kerala High Court
Shahina Khanam vs Riyz Khan on 14 June, 2022
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
   TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                       MACA NO. 2785 OF 2012
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 10.03.2011 IN OPMV 2514/2006 OF MOTOR
                ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

             SHAHINA KHANAM,
             D/O.ISMAIL KHAN, AGED 44 YEARS, 35/2825,
             PALLATH ROAD, THAMMANAM P.O., KOCHI - 682 032 AND
             NOW RESIDING AT SHAPLAZA, SHAH COLONY, NEAR
             HANUMANMANDIR, GOVINDAPURA, AHAMMED NAGAR, PIN -
             490041.
             BY ADVS.
             SRI.C.ARUN PRASANTH
             SRI.A.S.BRIJESH
             SMT.ROOPA RAMACHANDRAN


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:

    1        RIYAZ KHAN,
             DISTRICT SALES MANAGER,
             MODI-MUNDI PHARMA LIMITED,
             REGIONAL OFFICE, K.N.MATHEW BUILDING,
             MARKET ROAD,KOCHI - 11.
    2        NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
             DIVISION NO.10, FLAT NO.101-106, N-1, B.M.C.HOUSE,
             CONNANGHAT PLACE, NEW DELHI 110001 HAVING ITS
             REGIONAL OFFICE AT MUTHOOT TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI
             - 35.
    3        NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
             THIRD PARTY CELL, NEAR ANDHRA BANK,
             JOSE JUNCTION, KOCHI-682 035.
             BY ADV RAJI T.BHASKAR


     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 07.06.2022, THE COURT ON 14.06.2022 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 M.A.C.A.No.2785/2012             2




                     A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
             ================================
                     M.A.C.A.No.2785 of 2012
             ================================
                Dated this the 14th day of June, 2022


                         JUDGMENT

This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging award dated 10.03.2011 in

O.P(MV).No.2514/2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Ernakulam. The appellant is the petitioner before the

Tribunal. The respondents are respondents 1 to 3 before the

Tribunal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as

the respondents.

3. Summary of the petition averments:

The appellant herein, who sustained injuries in a motor

accident occurred on 01.06.2006 while travelling in a car bearing

Reg.No.KL-7/AP 8696, had preferred claim under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal for Rs.3,53,300/-. The

appellant alleged negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, who

was driving the above car.

4. The 1st respondent was set exparte before the Tribunal.

Respondents 2 and 3, the respective insurers contested the matter

by filing written statement. The 2nd respondent admitted the policy

to the car bearing Reg.No.KL-7/AP 8696 and disputed quantum of

compensation under various heads.

5. The Tribunal jointly tried this case along with 3 other

connected cases. Exts.A1 to A19 were marked on the side of the

petitioner. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the respondents.

6. Finally, the Tribunal granted Rs.1,23,572/- along with

interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

7. While assailing the award, the learned counsel for the

appellant would submit that though the appellant claimed

Rs.7,000/- as her monthly income as a private tuition teacher, the

Tribunal fixed the same at Rs.3,000/- only. Though the learned

counsel for the appellant failed to substantiate evidence to prove

the income of the appellant at Rs.7,000/-, he conceded that

following the ratio in [(2011) 13 SCC 236] Ramachandrappa v.

Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.,

Rs.5,500/- is liable to be fixed in this matter. This contention is not

opposed by the learned counsel for the insurer. It is argued by the

learned counsel for the appellant further that though Ext.A11

disability certificate showing 15% disability issued by a dental

consultant was produced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal not

accepted the same and a sum of Rs.10,000/- was granted as a

consolidated sum under the head `disability income'. According to

the learned counsel for the appellant, 15% disability as per Ext.A11

should have been considered by the Tribunal.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurer

vehemently opposed Ext.A11 on the ground that it was not issued

by a competent doctor and the author of Ext.A11 is a dental

consultant and the appellant failed to examine him to prove the

same.

9. I have perused Exts.A6 and A7 wound certificates and

Exts.A8 and A9 discharge summaries along with Ext.A10 treatment

certificate. Bilateral communited fracture maxilla and fracture of

naso ethmoidal complex, bleeding from mouth, contusion on the

face, haemorrhage on left eye were the major injuries diagonised

and treated. Thus it appears that a competent person to issue a

disability certificate to the appellant, may be a Neurologist or an

ENT specialist, who had treated the petitioner for the above

infirmities. In view of the matter, I am not inclined to revisit the

finding of the Tribunal negativing Ext.A11. Therefore, I am of the

view that Rs.10,000/- granted by the Tribunal under the head

`disability income' as a consolidated sum need not be interfered

with.

10. As I have already pointed out, 2 months' income @

Rs.3,000/- was granted by the Tribunal. Considering the injuries

and treatment thereof, I am inclined to grant loss of earnings for a

period of 3 months @ Rs.5,500/-. Thus the amount would come to

Rs.16,500/-. Reducing Rs.6,000/- granted by the Tribunal, the

appellant is entitled to get Rs.10,500/- more under the head loss of

earnings. The Tribunal granted Rs.25,000/- under the head `pain

and suffering'. Considering the injuries and treatment as already

discussed, I am inclined to grant Rs.5,000/- more under the head

pain and suffering. Similarly, the Tribunal granted Rs.15,000/-

under the head loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. Having

appraised the evidence available, I am inclined to grant Rs.10,000/-

more under the head `loss of amenities'.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. It is ordered that

the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation to the tune

of Rs.25,500/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand five hundred only)

with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition

till the date of deposit or realisation, excluding the period of 503

days wherein, grant of interest was specifically disallowed by the

order in C.M.Application No.1/2012 dated 01.12.2021.

Sd/-

(A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE) rtr/

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter