IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 4TH BHADRA, 1944
MACA NO.736 OF 2014
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 535/2007 OF 1ST
ADDITIONAL MACT, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SHILI
S/O. CHANDRAN, THARAYIL HOUSE, P.O.OLAVANNA,
KOZHIKODE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.AVM.SALAHUDDEEN
SMT.A.D.DIVYA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS NOS.2 TO 4:
1 N.P.MANOJ
JHANILATH HOUSE, PAYAM AMSOM, DESOM,
PUNARATHIVASA COLONY, IRITTY, VALLIKKAD, KANNUR
DISTRICT-670703.
2 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
NOOR COMPLEX, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673001.
3 K.P.GOVINDAN
RAVIPURAM P.O, CHENNARATHUR, VADAKARA,
KOZHIKODE-673103.
BY ADV DEEPA GEORGE
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 22.08.2022, THE COURT ON 26.08.2022
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA No.736 of 2014 2
SOPHY THOMAS, J.
------------------------------------
M.A.C.A No.736 of 2014
------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of August, 2022
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the claimant in OP (MV) No.535 of 2007 on the file of 1 st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, challenging inadequacy of the compensation awarded.
2. On 23.07.2006 at 7.30 p.m while the appellant was travelling in KL-11/A 1685 autorickshaw through Ullikkal- Vallithodu road, due to the rash and negligent driving by the 1 st respondent, the autorickshaw lost its control and it turned turtle and the appellant sustained serious injuries. He was taken to Medical College Hospital, Pariyaram and from there he was referred to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode where he was admitted and treated. Even after discharge from the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, he was treated at District Co-operative Hospital and MIMS Hospital. He approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.10 lakh. But he was awarded only Rs.7,65,038/-. Hence this appeal.
MACA No.736 of 2014 3
3. The accident, injuries and the policy of the offending vehicle are not in dispute.
4. Now let us see whether any interference is called for in the impugned award.
5. The appellant would say that, he was a 26 year old mason earning monthly income of Rs.4,500/-. The Tribunal fixed his notional income as Rs.4,500/-. Since the accident was in the year 2006, as per the decision Ramchandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited (AIR 2011 SC 2951), he was eligible to get his notional income fixed at Rs.5,500/-. But his claim was only for Rs.4,500/- and the Tribunal accepted that income as such. No interference is warranted to the notional income fixed.
6. Towards bystander expenses, the appellant was awarded only Rs.150/- per day. Since the accident was in the year 2006, Rs.200/- per day is justified. So, he is eligible to get Rs.3,750/- towards enhanced compensation for bystander expenses.
7. Towards pain and sufferings, Rs.10,000 more is awarded considering the injuries the appellant had suffered and the period of hospitalisation.
8. Towards loss of amenities also, Rs.10,000/- more is MACA No.736 of 2014 4 awarded as the appellant was hospitalised on several occasions and suffered disability also which was permanent in nature.
9. For disfiguration, the appellant was awarded only Rs.10,000/-. He was eligible to get Rs.15,000/- more for disfiguration of his left arm.
10. For loss of earning, the appellant was awarded Rs.22,500/- for five months. He was hospitalised for 75 days and so, his loss of earning might have been for more than six months. This Court is inclined to take the period of loss of earning as eight months @ Rs.4,500/-. So, he is eligible to get Rs.13,500/- as enhanced compensation towards loss of earning.
11. Ext.C1, the certificate of the Medical Board, shows that the appellant had suffered permanent disability of 65%. Since the disability was 65%, future prospects also could have been added to his income. Since he was a 26 year old mason, he was eligible for addition of 40% towards future prospects. If that be so, his income would have been fixed at Rs.6,300/-. So, for 65% disability, applying the multiplier 17, compensation for permanent disability would have been assessed as Rs.8,35,380/-
(6300x12x17x65/100). Since he was already awarded Rs.6,31,800/-, he was eligible to get the balance Rs.2,03,580/-. MACA No.736 of 2014 5
12. The compensation awarded under all other heads seems to be just and reasonable and it needs no interference.
Head of Amount Amount awarded Difference to
claim awarded by in appeal be drawn as
the Tribunal enhanced
compensation
Bystander Rs.11,250/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.3,750/-
expenses
Pain and Rs.15,000/- Rs.25,000/- Rs.10,000/-
sufferings
Loss of Rs.10,000/- Rs.20,000/- Rs.10,000/-
amenities and
enjoyment in
life
Compensation Rs.10,000/- Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/-
for
disfiguration
Loss of Rs.22,500/- Rs.36,000/- Rs.13,500/-
earning
Compensation Rs.6,31,800/- Rs.8,35,380/- Rs.2,03,580/-
for permanent
disability
Total Rs.7,00,550/- Rs.9,56,380/- Rs.2,55,830/-
13. In the result, the appellant is entitled to get
Rs.2,55,830/- (3750+10000+10000+15000+13500+203580) as
enhanced compensation.
The 2nd respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation in the Bank Account of the appellant with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation (excluding 721 days of delay in filing the appeal) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The deposit MACA No.736 of 2014 6 must be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06/09/2019 and clarified in O.M.No.D1/62475/2016 dated 07/11/2019 after deducting the liabilities, if any, of the appellant towards Tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund.
This appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE smp