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. 683 OF 2012
OP(MV)NO.226/2005 OF I ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE OP(MV):
K.P.RAJITH KUMAR @ RAJI,
S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 29 YEARS, PALLIRIKOTTU HOUSE,
P.O.PANTHEERANKAVU, MUNDUPALAM, CALICUT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN
SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV):
1 V.V.VASU, S/O.IMBICHI KANNAN, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE,
PANNIYANKARA P.O., CALICUT-673 009.
2 RAJEEV,
S/O.KUTTIRAMAN, AGED 25 YEARS, OTTAPILAKKIL HOUSE,
THAZHEKKODE, MANASSERY, CALICUT-673 602.
3 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BANGLOORE DIVISIONAL OFFICE-I, 3RD FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING
ANNEXE, 72, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR
SRI.P.JAYASANKAR
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 22.08.2022, THE COURT ON 26.08.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA 683 of 2012 2
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the claimant in OP(MV)No.226 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, alleging inadequacy of the compensation awarded.
2. On 28.02.2004, at 8.30 p.m., the appellant, a 29 year old Coolie, while stepping out of KL-11/P-2005 bus, driven by the 2nd respondent, the driver negligently moved the bus forward and as a result, he fell down from the bus and sustained injuries. He was taken to Government Hospital, Calicut and from there to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. He sustained serious head injury because of the accident and he was admitted and treated in hospital 9 times. He approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-, but the Tribunal awarded only Rs.1,01,840/-. Challenging the same, he has come up with this appeal.
MACA 683 of 2012 3
3. The 1st respondent was the owner, 2nd respondent was the driver and the 3rd respondent was the Insurer of the offending bus. The accident, injury and the policy of the offending vehicle are not in dispute.
4. According to the appellant, though he was earning monthly income of Rs.5,000/-, the Tribunal took his notional income as Rs.2,250/-, and it could not be justified. He was not able to do any work for more than six months and he suffered permanent disability of 15%. But the Tribunal failed to take into account his permanent disability. Overall, the compensation awarded was too meager, according to him.
5. The appellant was a 24 year old Coolie and the accident occurred in the year 2004. It is true that the Tribunal took his notional income as Rs.2,250/-. According to him, he was a Coolie, earning monthly income of Rs.5,000/-, though there is no evidence to prove his income. As per the decision Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR MACA 683 of 2012 4 2011 SC 2951], in the year 2004, he was eligible to get his notional income fixed @ Rs.4,500/-. So, for loss of earning for six months, he was eligible to get Rs.27,000/-. He was already paid Rs.13,500/- under that head. So, he is eligible to get the balance amount of Rs.13,500/- as enhanced compensation for loss of earning.
6. For pain and suffering, he was given only Rs.7,000/-. He had suffered serious head injury and he was hospitalised for 16 days. So, he is eligible to get Rs.8,000/- more under the head 'pain and suffering' as enhance compensation.
7. Towards permanent disability of 15% proved through Ext.C1, he was awarded only Rs.72,900/-, taking his monthly income @ Rs.2,250/-. Since we have fixed his notional income as Rs.4,500/-, he was eligible to get Rs.1,45,800/- towards permanent disability. Since he was already paid Rs.72,900/-, he is eligible to get the balance amount of Rs.72,900/- as enhanced compensation for permanent disability.
MACA 683 of 2012 5
8. He was awarded nothing towards loss of amenities. Considering the gravity of the injuries suffered by him and 15% disability, at least Rs.10,000/- could have been awarded towards loss of amenities. So, he is eligible to get Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities.
9. Towards bystander expenses, he was given only Rs.100/- per day for 16 days of hospitalisation. He was eligible to get Rs.200/- per day and so, he is eligible to get the balance Rs.1,600/- as enhanced compensation towards bystander expenses.
10. Towards extra nourishment, he was given only Rs.75/- per day for the actual days of hospitalisation. Since he had suffered serious head injury, he might have been surviving on liquid foods and considering that fact, Rs.100/- per day was only reasonable. So, he is eligible to get Rs.400/- more under the head 'extra nourishment'.
11. The compensation awarded under all other heads is reasonable and it need not be interfered with.
MACA 683 of 2012 6
Head of claim Amount Amount Difference to be
awarded by awarded in drawn as
the Tribunal appeal enhanced
compensation
Loss of earning Rs.13,500/- Rs.27,000/- Rs.13,500 /-
Pain and Rs.7,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.8,000/-
suffering
Permanent Rs.72,900/- Rs.1,45,800/- Rs.72,900/-
disability
Loss of .... Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
amenities
Bystander
expenses Rs.1,600/- Rs.3,200/- Rs.1,600/-
Extra Rs.1,200/- Rs.1,600/- Rs.400/-
nourishment
Total Rs.1,06,400/-
12. In the result, the appellant is entitled to get Rs.1,06,400/- (13,500 + 8,000 + 72,900 + 10,000 +1,600 + 400) (Rupees One Lakh Six Thousand and Four Hundred only) as enhanced compensation.
13. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation in the Bank account of the appellant with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the MACA 683 of 2012 7 date of petition till the date of deposit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The deposit 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.
The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE DSV/25.08.2022