Kerala High Court
Susheer vs K B Ajayan on 11 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
TH
THURSDAY, THE 11
DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA,
1946
MACA NO. 60 OF 2014
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 20.12.2012 IN OP(MV) NO.3195 OF 2005
OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
USHEER,
S
AGED 36 YEARS,
S/O.BHARATHAN, RESIDING AT KANJATTY HOUSE, MANATHALA,
CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR.
Y ADVS.
B
SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
SRI.A.R.NIMOD
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 K B AJAYAN, RESIDING AT KANJATTY HOUSE, MANATHALA, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR - 680 506. 2 A.V.HARIDASAN, S/O.VELAYI, RESIDING AT ADAPUZHA ACHIVEETTIL, BLANGAD, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 506. MACA No.60 of 2014 2 3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ANUGRAHA BUILDINGS, WADAKKANCHERY ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR - 680 503. Y ADV SRI.RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY, SC, THE NEW INDIA B ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY EARD H ON 11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA No.60 of 2014 3 J U D G M E N T This appeal is at the instance of the claimant in OP(MV)No.3195 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, challenging the award on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. 2. The appellant met with a road traffic accident on 05.11.2005, while he was travelling in KL-8/P-6062 autorickshaw from Pavaratty to Chavakkad. The 2nd respondentwasthedriveroftheautorickshawandtheaccident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. The appellant sufferedseriousinjuries,includingfractureoffemurofleftleg. He was hospitalised for 21 days. He was a businessman earning monthly income of Rs.8,000/-. He approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. But the Tribunal awarded only Rs.58,850/-. Hence this appeal. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the autorickshaw remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent-Insurer contested the case, but admitted the policy. Since there was violation of the policy conditions, 'pay MACA No.60 of 2014 4 and recovery' was ordered by the Tribunal, in favour of the Insurer. 4. In the appeal also, respondents 1 and 2 remained absentinspiteofserviceofnotice.The3rdrespondent-Insurer entered appearance through counsel. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-Insurer. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though they produced Ext.A6 medical bills for Rs.46,630/-, learnedTribunalerroneouslyawardedonlyRs.3,630/-.Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent also admitted that Ext.A6 medical bills were amounting to Rs.46,630/- and so, that amount ought to have been awarded by the Tribunal. So, this Court is inclined to award Rs.46,630/- towards medical expenses. After deducting, Rs.3,630 already awarded, the appellant is entitled to get Rs.43,000/- towards medical expenses. 7. Learned Tribunal fixed the notional income of the MACA No.60 of 2014 5 appellant @ Rs.3,000/- against his claim of Rs.8,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that going by the decision Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951], the appellant was eligibletogethisnotional income fixed @ Rs.5,000/- per annum, as the accidentwasin the year 2005. So, this Court is inclinedtoaccepthisnotional income @ Rs.5,000/-. For loss of earning for six months, he was eligible to get Rs.30,000/-. After deducting Rs.18,000/- already awarded, he is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.12,000/-. 8. Towards extra nourishment, this Court is inclined to award Rs.2,000/- as he was hospitalised for 21 days. 9. Towards damage to clothing Rs.500/- can be awarded as no amount was ordered by the Tribunal under that head. 10. Towardspainandsuffering,andforlossofamenities, Rs.10,000/- each is awarded in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal, as he had suffered fracture to the MACA No.60 of 2014 6 femur left leg, and he was hospitalised for 21 days. 11. Learned Tribunal awardedRs.10,000/-towardsfuture treatment and for removal of implants. Since thefracturewas on femur of left leg, and treated with implants, this Court is inclined to award Rs.10,000/- more towards future treatment and removal of implants. 12. The compensation awarded under all other heads seems to be reasonable, and hence it needs no modification. Head of claim mount A mount A Difference to be awarded by awarded in drawn as the Tribunal appeal enhanced compensation edical M expenses Rs.3,630/- Rs.46,630/- Rs.43,000/- Loss of earning Rs.18,000/- Rs.30,000/- Rs.12,000/- xtra E ..... Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/- nourishment amage to D clothing ...... Rs.500/- Rs.500/- ain and P Rs.12,000/- Rs.22,000/- Rs.10,000/- suffering oss of L Rs.8,000/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.10,000/- amenities MACA No.60 of 2014 7 iscomfort & D Rs.10,000/- Rs.20,000/- Rs.10,000/- future treatment Total Rs.87,500/- Enhanced compensation is Rs.87,500/- 13.Intheresult,theappellantisentitledtogetenhanced compensationofRs.87,500/-(43,000+12,000+2,000+500 +10,000 + 10,000 + 10,000). 14. The 3rd respondent-Insurer is directed todepositthe enhanced compensation of Rs.87,500/- (Rupees Eighty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) with interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit, (excluding 244 days of delay in filing the appeal), before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal concerned, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Learned Tribunal shall disburse that amount to the appellant after deducting the liabilities, if any, towards tax, balance court fee, legal benefit funds etc. 15. Learned Tribunal ordered pay and recovery in favour of the 3rd respondent, as there was violation of the policy MACA No.60 of 2014 8 conditions.Thatfindingwasneverchallengedbyrespondents1 and 2. So the pay and recovery ordered in favour of the 3rd respondent stands confirmed. The appeal is allowed to the extent as above, and no order is made as to costs. Sd/- SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE DSV/-