IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1944
M.A.C.A. NO.1106 OF 2018
(AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 24.02.2018 IN OPMV 663/2014 OF
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA)
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SAJEENDRAN NAIR, AGED 47 YEARS,
S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, USHA BHAVAN,
CHATHIYARA MURI, THAMARAKULAM VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
SRI.ARUN BOSE
SRI.B.BIPIN
SRI.R.REJI
SMT.THARA THAMBAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 VARGHESE,
S/O.PHILIPOSE, KANNEMPALLIL,
VETTIKODU, KATTANAM, MAVELIKARA - 690 505.
2 MUHAMMED KUNJU,
SHALIMAR, ELIPPAKULAM P.O.,
MAVELIKARA, PIN - 690 503.
3 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
BY ADV SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR, SC,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
MACA No.1106/2018
2
JUDGMENT
(Dated :3rd June, 2022) Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded in O.P.(MV)No.663 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mavelikara, this appeal is filed by the claimant.
2. On 13.03.2014, at 2.00 p.m., the petitioner was riding a scooter bearing Reg.No.Kl-31/E-2405 along Kattanam Meppallikutti road and when he reached Meppallikutti, he was knocked down by a goods autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-31/C-5849, which came from behind and thereby he sustained serious injuries. The autorickshaw was driven by the 1st respondent and the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the goods autorickshaw. The 2nd respondent is the owner of the goods autorickshaw and the 3rd respondent is MACA No.1106/2018 3 the insurer. The petitioner claimed Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation.
3. The 1st and 2nd respondents were set ex-parte. The 3rd respondent insurance company filed written statement contending that the autorickshaw involved in the accident did not have a valid insurance policy at the time of the accident. The alleged accident happened due to the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent was denied.
4. On the side of the petitioner, Exts.A1 to A9 documents were produced and marked. There was no documentary evidence on the side of the respondents. Ext.X1 disability certificate was marked. The tribunal on a consideration of the entire aspects of the case awarded a sum of Rs.1,19,842/- towards the claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.
MACA No.1106/2018 4
5. The appeal is filed challenging the quantum, mainly regarding the notional income that was taken by the Tribunal. It is seen that the Tribunal has taken notional income of the petitioner as Rs.5,000/-, but in the claim it was Rs.10,000/-. Relying on the decision reported in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [2011 (13) SCC 236], the accident which happened in the year 2014, Rs.9,500/- was taken as notional income. As far as the permanent disability is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed 11% permanent disability evidencing the medical certificate issued by the Govt.Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha, which was constituted by the Medical Board. The Tribunal has reduced the same to 6%, for the reason that the doctor who issued the medical certificate was not examined to prove the same. In the decision MACA No.1106/2018 5 reported in Karunakaran v. Abdul Rasheed [2015(4) KLT 465], it is held that, when the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, the court below was not justified in rejecting the same, for the reason that the doctor who issued the certificate was not examined. Relying on the said decision, the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board evidencing 11% disability is accepted.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that, though the
petitioner had to undergo complete rest for 5 months, the loss of earning is granted only for three months. Taking into consideration of the injuries sustained, I am of the opinion that the petitioner had taken bed rest for 5 months without any earning, hence the loss of earnings can be worked out to Rs.9,500 x 5 - 15,000(amount already MACA No.1106/2018 6 granted) = 32,500/-. For pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-; considering the injury sustained, I enhance the same by Rs.10,000/- more on that head. Regarding the disability income, since the petitioner was aged 46 years, the multiplier to be taken is 13 and the income taken as Rs.9,500/- per month. Hence the amount calculated would be 9,500 x 12 x 13 x 11 / 100 = 1,63,020/-. The court below has awarded Rs.46,800/- under the head disability income. The balance amount would come to Rs.1,16,220/-. So the total compensation would come to Rs.1,58,720/-.
Resultantly, appeal is partly allowed and the petitioner is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,58,720/- with 7% interest from the date of the award till realisation.
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE ss