IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
MACA NO. 2475 OF 2010
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1859/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, MANJERI
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MARAKKAR M.
S/O.RAYIN
MANGADAN HOUSE, PARAMBILANGADI,
EDARIKKODE.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENT/THIRD RESPONDENT:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD
BRANCH OFFICE, PANDI AUTOMOBILE BUILDING,
UPHILL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
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. 2475 OF 2010
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2022 Appellant is the petitioner in O.P.(MV).No.1859/2001 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri and he impugns award dated 25.08.2005 in the above case. Respondent herein is the third respondent before the Tribunal.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The short facts of the case:
The appellant, who suffered injuries in consequence of a motor accident occurred on 24.02.1996 at 12.45 hours, had approached the Tribunal and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.2,30,000/-, attributing negligence against the driver of the jeep, who is the first respondent before the Tribunal.
MACA NO. 2475 OF 2010 3
4. The respondent-Insurance Company filed written statement disputing negligence and quantum of compensation while admitting policy.
5. The Tribunal examined PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A9 on the side of the appellant. No evidence let in by the respondent.
6. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the disability certificate produced as Ext.A7 was not considered by the Tribunal and no amount under the heads 'loss of earnings' and 'loss of disability' was granted. According to him, more amount under the said heads are liable to be granted to the appellant.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that the appellant lodged petition claiming compensation only in the year 2001, though he alleged to have sustained injuries in an accident occurred on 24.02.1996. It is argued further that eventhough Ext.A7 treatment cum disability certificate showing 10% disability MACA NO. 2475 OF 2010 4 was produced, the Tribunal negatived the claim under disability, on the finding that during evidence, PW1 admitted that he had been working abroad at the time of examination also.
8. In this case, Ext.A2-wound certificate and Ext.A3 series-discharge summary would go to show that the appellant sustained abrasion right forehead temporal region, contusion chin, abrasion over right knee and compound comminuted fracture both bone right leg etc. He was treated for a period of 15 days from 24.02.1996 to 11.03.1996 initially and thereafter, for a period of 12 days from 01.04.1996 to 12.04.1996. Again, he was treated for a period of 13 days from 14.11.1996 to 27.11.1996.
9. In this case, though the appellant sustained both bone fracture and treatment, no amount granted under the head 'by-standers expense', loss earnings', 'loss of amenities' and 'loss of disabilities'. MACA NO. 2475 OF 2010 5
10. In the petition, the appellant raised contention that he was getting Rs.2,800/- dirham per month as monthly income. The said aspect is not established by convincing evidence. Applying the ratio in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the monthly income of a coolie would come to Rs.4,500/-. Since the accident is of the year 1996, I am inclined to fix the monthly income at Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, the 'loss of earnings' for a period of 5 months is granted. Thus, the appellant is entitled to get Rs.15,000/- under this head.
11. In this case, the appellant produced Ext.A7 treatment cum disability certificate showing 10% disability. The Tribunal not considered any amount under the head 'disability income' mainly on the ground that the appellant admitted the fact that he had been working abroad at the time of accident without any loss. However, considering the injuries and treatment as I have al ready MACA NO. 2475 OF 2010 6 discussed, the disability of the appellant at the rate of 5% can be considered. The multiplier is '18' since the age of the appellant is 25. Therefore, the disability income is calculated as under:
3000 x 12 x 18 x 5% = Rs.32,400/-
Thus, the appellant is entitled to get Rs.32,400/- as 'disability income'.
12. Apart from that, Rs.4,800/- is granted as by- standers expenses for the impatient treatment for 40 days. Under the head 'pain and suffering', the Tribunal granted Rs.9,000/-. I am inclined to increase the same by Rs.3,000/- more. Similarly, I am inclined to grant Rs.6,000/- under the head 'loss of amenities'.
In the result, this appeal stands allowed. It is held that the appellant is entitled to get Rs.1,18,790/- as compensation, out of which Rs. 62,390/- was granted by the Tribunal and the balance of Rs.56,400 is granted as MACA NO. 2475 OF 2010 7 enhanced compensation with the same rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, payable by the Insurance Company, from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation, excluding interest for a period of 1760 days specifically excluded by this Court while allowing the delay petition - C.M.Appln.No.3128 of 2010 as per order dated 24.11.2010, while condoning the delay of re-presenting this appeal.
Insurance Company is directed to deposit the same in the name of the appellant within two months from today. On deposit, the appellant can release the same.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE nkr