IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944
MACA NO. 1910 OF 2018
OP(MV) 237/2012 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & MOTOR
ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-III, PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
PRAKASH L,
S/O. LAKSHMANA PANICKER, KAILAS, MUTHOOR P.O.,
THIRUVALLA.
BY ADV SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH
RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY
LTD., SUNDARAM TOWERS, 46, WHITES ROAD,
ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI - 600014.
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.06.2022, THE COURT ON 01.07.2022
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NO.1910 OF 2018 2
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the claimant in O.P. (MV)No.237 of 2012 on the files of the Additional District Judge & Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-III, Pathanamthitta.
2. The appellant met with a road traffic accident on 31.01.2012 at 11.30 a.m. While he was travelling in a car, another car bearing Registration No. KL-03/S-6582 dashed against the car, in which he was travelling and he sustained serious injuries.
3. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending car by the 1st respondent, who was the owner cum driver and the 2nd respondent was its insurer.
4. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A25 were marked before the Tribunal and no evidence was adduced from the side of respondents. On analysing the facts and evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.7,22,040/- against his claim of Rs.44,65,000/-. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, he has come up with this appeal.
5. Now the point to be considered is whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the award passed by the Tribunal warranting MACA NO.1910 OF 2018 3 interference by this Court.
6. Learned counsel Sri.A.N.Santhosh appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant was a businessman earning monthly income of Rs.35,000/- per month. He was aged only 49 years at the time of the accident. He suffered 20% disability going by the Medical Certificate. But the actual disability suffered by him was much more. He was undergoing various types of treatments for about two years from the date of the accident, and even now, he is not able to drive a vehicle, because of Radial Nerve Palsy, and it has adversely affected his business prospects. Though he was a businessman, the learned Tribunal fixed his notional income @ Rs.6,000/- per month, which is too low when compared to his actual income. Learned counsel for the appellant, pointed out that going by the decision Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951], in the year 2012, notional income for a vegetable vendor was fixed @ Rs.8500/-. Since the appellant was a businessman, which is proved through documents, he was eligible to get his notional income fixed more than Rs.6,000/-. It is true that even after the accident, he was continuing his business activities as seen from Ext.A23 Income Tax Returns. Considering all these facts, his notional income could be fixed @ Rs.9,500/- per month. Learned Tribunal assessed his loss of earnings for a period of six months only. MACA NO.1910 OF 2018 4 There is evidence to show that he was on continued treatment for about two years involving hospitalisation and still he is suffering from Radial Nerve Palsy. So loss of earnings can be calculated at least for nine months considering the nature of injuries and period of treatment undergone. So loss of earnings can be assessed as Rs.85,500/- (9500 X 9). He was already awarded Rs36,000/-. So he is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.49,500/- under the head 'loss of earnings'.
7. Towards compensation for permanent disability of 20%, the Tribunal assessed compensation of Rs.1,87,200/- taking his monthly income @ Rs.6,000/- per month. Since, we have fixed his notional income at Rs.9,500/-, the compensation for permanent disability can be computed as Rs.2,96,400/- (9500X12X13X20/100). The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,87,200/-. So he is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.1,09,200/- towards enhanced compensation for permanent disability.
8. Towards loss of amenities, he was given Rs.50,000/- only. According to the appellant, as he suffered Radial Nerve Palsy, he is not able to drive a vehicle and that is affecting his business to a great extent. Considering the nature of injuries, and 20% disability he had suffered with Radial Nerve Palsy, an addition of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities is justifiable. So Rs.25,000/- more is awarded towards loss of amenities.
MACA NO.1910 OF 2018 5
9. In all other counts, the compensation awarded seems to be reasonable and it requires no enhancement.
10. In the result, the appellant is entitled to get additional compensation of Rs.1,83,700/-(49,500 +1,09,200+25,000).
11. The respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation in the Bank account of the appellant with interest at the rate of 9% from the 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/25.06.2022