IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1944
MACA NO. 2505 OF 2012
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 17.12.2011 IN OPMV 1079/2006 OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SHALLY
S/O JAMES,
REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN,
ANIE, W/O.JAMES, THANNIKKOTT HOUSE,
PUTHENPALLY KARA, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 VIMAL RAJ
S/O RAJENDRAN, T.C.12-1576,
R.C. STREET, NEAR MLA HOSTAL,
KUNNUKUZHI KARA, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035.
2 SHINE ANTONY
KOLARIKKAL HOUSE, MANNAMTHURUTH KARA,
VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE-683 517.
3 ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
BRANCH OFFICE, KANNANKERY ESTATE, MARINE DRIVE,
SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 035.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.AJITH KUMAR 12884
SRI.K.B.RAMANAND
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 2505 OF 2012
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 14th day of June, 2022 The petitioner in O.P.(MV).No.1079/2006 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur assails award dated 17.12.2011 in the above case, in this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MV Act'). The respondents before the Tribunal are the respondents herein.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. No representation for the respondents.
3. The summary of the case is as follows:- The appellant lodged claim under Section 166 of the MV Act before the Tribunal, on the allegation that he sustained serious injuries pursuant to an accident occurred on 02.07.2006 while he was travelling as a pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL 7/AZ-1521 due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the first respondent. The appellant claimed Rs.10,00,000/- as MACA NO. 2505 OF 2012 3 compensation from respondents 1 to 3.
4. The first and second respondents were declared ex parte by the Tribunal.
5. The third respondent-Insurance Company filed written statement. While admitting policy, the negligence and quantum of compensation under various heads were opposed.
6. The Tribunal went on trial. The Tribunal examined PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A11 on the side of the appellant. No evidence adduced from the side of the respondents. Ext.X1 disability certificate also marked.
7. The Tribunal granted Rs.6,57,065/- along with 7.5% interest.
8. While pressing for enhancement on compensation, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the 'monthly income' taken by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- is on lower side. According to him, the appellant is entitled to get compensation based on Rs.5,500/- as the monthly income, following the ratio in Ramachandrappa MACA NO. 2505 OF 2012 4 v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236].
9. In response to his submission, I have perused the averments in the petition. In the petition, the specific case put up by the appellant is that, he was a mason by profession and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. In view of this categorical admission, I am inclined to fix the 'monthly income' as Rs.5,000/- and nothing more. Accordingly, the compensation granted to the appellant where he sustained injuries, viz, (1) right temporoparietal bone defect needs cranioplasty, (2) easily getting angry, forgetfulness, occasional laughter, (3) Patient on AED (eption) which may have to be continued for long period, he is getting one episode of seizure per month, (4) Incontinence, (5) Left hemiparesis grade 4 power, walking on level unsupported and climbing heights with difficulty, requires recalculation.
10. In this case, the Medical Board certified the disability of the appellant as 37%. However, the Tribunal, MACA NO. 2505 OF 2012 5 having appraised the difficulties of the appellant, following the decision reported in Kalesh v. Sudheer (2010 (1) KLT 537) fixed the same at 50%. Since no appeal filed at the instance of the Insurance Company, I am inclined to accept the same as such.
11. The Tribunal granted 'loss of earnings' for a period of six months at the rate of Rs.3,000/-. Since the monthly income is fixed at Rs.5,000/-, the same requires recalculation as under:-
5,000 x 6 x = 30,000/-
Accordingly, Rs.12,000/- (30,000 - 18,000) more is granted under the head 'loss of earnings'.
12. However, it appears that '18' is the multiplier wrongly applied by the Tribunal, though admittedly and as per Ext.A11 (Copy of SSLC book of the appellant), the multiplier is '17', since the appellant is in the age group between 26 to 30, following the table in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)]. Thus, the multiplier is fixed as MACA NO. 2505 OF 2012 6 '17' instead of '18'.
Therefore, the disability income also recalculated as under:
5,000 x 12 x 17/2 = 5,10,000/-
Out of which, Rs.3,24,000/- was granted by the Tribunal. Thus, Rs.1,86,000/- (5,10,000 - 3,24,000) more is granted under the head 'loss of disability income'.
13. In the award, the Tribunal granted Rs.35,000/- each under the heads 'pain and sufferings' and 'loss of amenities of life'. I am inclined to increase the same by Rs.7,000/- each more.
14. Under other heads, sufficient compensation was granted by the Tribunal and therefore, no more increase is liable to be granted.
In the result, this appeal stands allowed. It is held that the appellant is entitled to get Rs.8,69,065/- as compensation. Out of which, Rs.6,57,065/- was granted by the Tribunal and the balance amount of Rs.2,12,000/- (Rupees two lakh and twelve thousand only) is granted as MACA NO. 2505 OF 2012 7 enhanced compensation with the same rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, excluding interest for a period of 165 days specifically excluded by this Court while allowing the delay petition-C.M.Application No.1/2012 as per order dated 12.11.2021, payable by the Insurance Company, from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the same in the name of the appellant within two months from today. On deposit, the appellant is at liberty to release the same.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE nkr