High Court Kerala High Court

Jinesh vs George John Nidhiry on 15 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
Jinesh vs George John Nidhiry on 15 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 1865 of 2006()


1. JINESH, MINOR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. GEORGE JOHN NIDHIRY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.K.KOSHY

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :15/07/2008

 O R D E R
                              M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
                              --------------------------
               M.A.C.A. Nos. 1865 of 2006 &1503 of 2007
                                ---------------------
                  Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008

                                  JUDGMENT

Both these appeals are preferred against the award passed by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, in OP(MV) 193/02.

M.A.C.A. No. 1865/06 is preferred by the claimant for enhancement of

compensation and M.A.C.A. No. 1503/07 is preferred by the Insurance

Company for exoneration of the liability.

2. Heard the counsel for both sides. Let me first consider the

question of exoneration of liability of the Insurance Company. Learned

counsel for the Insurance Company strongly contends before me that the

claimant was a pillion rider and the policy issued was only an Act only

policy and therefore in the light of the decision of the apex court in United

India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [2006 (4) SCC 404] the Insurance

Company is to be exonerated from the liability.

3. There cannot be any dispute regarding that proposition of

law. But in the case it has to be pleaded that it is only an Act only policy

and being a pillion rider it is not covered, for the reason the matter has to

be decided on the factual matrix pleaded before the court. Unfortunately

not even a remote way pleading is there to show the non liability.

Therefore, at this stage this court cannot consider that argument without

pleading. Therefore, the said appeal is not entertained.

MACA Nos.1865/06 & 1503/07 2

4. Now I will consider the appeal preferred dy the claimant. The

claimant was only aged 17 years at the time of the accident. He claimed

to be tuition teacher having a monthly income of Rs.2,000/-. The Tribunal

had fixed his income at Rs.1,800/- and calculated the compensation. I am

surprised how the Tribunal has accepted a 17 year old boy as a teacher

that too with an income of Rs.1,800/-. This shows the liberal mindedness of

the Tribunal in proceeding to fix the compensation. It is reflected on other

counts as well except on the question of explaining the percentage of

disability. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering,

Rs.5,400/- for three months loss of earning and Rs.2,650/- for medical

expenses. The disability certificate produced by the claimant was not

accepted by the Tribunal in toto. In spite of 8% disability, the Tribunal

accepted 4% disability. I feel even if 2% or 1% is increased, the factum of

taking the income and awarding of compensation under other heads

appears to be grossly sufficient. Besides the same, the Tribunal has also

granted a compensation of Rs.8,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment

in life. Thus, this is a case where the Tribunal has taken a liberal approach

in fixing the compensation which does not call for any interference.

Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps

MACA Nos.1865/06 & 1503/07 3