IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
MACA NO. 4228 OF 2019
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 06.07.2019 IN OP(MV) 1462/2014 OF
THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
MAVELIKKARA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MANOJ,
AGED 27 YEARS,
S/O.MADHU, MANU BHAVANAM, THAMALLAKKAL VADAKKUM
MURI, ULAVUKADU MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE,
MAVELIKKARA TALUK - 689 512.
BY ADV RESMY M.S
RESPONDENT/2nd RESPONDENT:
THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
CO.LTD.,
KAYAMKULAM - 690 502.
BY ADV SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NO.4228 OF 2019 2
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the claimant in O.P. (MV)No.1462 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikara.
2. On 07.04.2013, the appellant met with a road accident while travelling in KL-26-3916 motorcycle, along with his friend. They were knocked down by KL- 04/T-861 autorickshaw owned and driven by the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent-New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Kayamkulam was the insurer.
3. The appellant suffered the following injuries:
1. Type II supra inter condylar fracture right femur.
2. Communited fracture on the patella right.
3. Lacerated wound right knee.
4. Lacerated wound right thigh.
5. Lacerated wound right toe.
6. Skin and flesh grafting done.
4. He was taken to NSS Medical Mission Hospital, Pandalam and from there, he was referred to Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and treated as inpatient from 08.04.2013 to MACA NO.4228 OF 2019 3 23.04.2013. He was a 22 year old mechanic in an Ape Wrokshop, earning monthly income of Rs.16,000/-.
5. PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A26 documents were marked from the side of appellant. Ext.B1 was marked from the side of the insurer and Ext.X1 was marked as Witness Exhibit.
6. After analysing the facts and evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,75,880/- to the appellant against his claim for Rs.13,96,000. He has come up with this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation.
7. Now the point to be considered is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper.
8. According to the appellant, though he was a mechanic, the Tribunal fixed notional income of Rs.8,000/- only, which is on the lower side. He was a mechanic in an Ape Workshop earning monthly salary of Rs.16,000/-. Exhibit-A20 Certificate issued by this employer was also produced by him, which was proved through PW2-the Proprietor of the workshop. But there was no document to prove his proprietorship of the workshop as claimed by him. The learned Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the appellant was working as a mechanic; but since PW2 could not produce any supporting documents, Exhibit-A20 was not accepted, and a notional income of Rs.8,000/- was fixed for him. Going by the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal MACA NO.4228 OF 2019 4 Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951], his notional income in the year 2013 could have been fixed @ Rs.9,000/-. Since he was found to be a mechanic, involving skilled work, his notional income could be fixed @ Rs.9500/-. So, towards loss of earning for eight months, he could have been awarded Rs.76,000/-. He was already awarded Rs.64,000/-, and so he is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.12,000/- under that head.
9. According to the appellant, he suffered fracture of right femur, communited fracture on the right patella and other lacerated wounds which required skin and flesh grafting. He was hospitalised for 31 days. He had suffered disability of 30% as seen from Ext.X1 certificate issued by the Medical Board. But the Tribunal assessed his functional disability at a reduced rate of 15%.
10. Smt.Resmy M.S., the learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on Rajkumar v. Ajaykumar [2011 (1) KLT 620] to say that when disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medial Board, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such Certificates. The respondent is not disputing the genuineness of Ext.X1 Medical Certificate issued by the Medical Board. So his disability @ 30% reported by the Medical Board ought to have been accepted by the Tribunal.
11. We have fixed the notional income of the appellant @ MACA NO.4228 OF 2019 5 Rs.9,500/-. The multiplier is 18 and when 30% disability is taken into account, the amount of compensation payable on account of permanent disability is Rs.6,15,600 (9,500 X 12 X 18 X 30/100). He was already awarded Rs.3,62,880/-, so he is entitled to get a balance amount of Rs.2,52,720/- under that head.
12. Towards pain and suffering, he was given Rs.25,000/- and towards loss of amenities Rs.30,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. Considering the nature of injuries suffered, the period of hospitalisation and the disability he had met with, Rs.20,000/- more can be awarded under each of the head towards 'pain and suffering' and 'loss of amenities'.
13. In all other counts, the compensation awarded seems to be reasonable and it required no enhancement.
14. In the result, the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.3,04,720/- (12,000 + 2,52,720 + 20,000 + 20,000).
15. The respondent Insurer 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 MACA NO.4228 OF 2019 6 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