Kerala High Court
Rashida Beevi vs Prasannan on 12 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
TH
FRIDAY, THE 12
DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA,
1946
MACA NO. 2762 OF 2012
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 14.03.2012 IN OP(MV) NO.603 OF 2007 OF
FIRST ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM
APPELLANT/S:
ASHIDA BEEVI,
R
W/O.KUNJUMON, SULTHANA MANZIL, MEMANA MURI,
OACHIRA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
Y ADVS.
B
SRI.K.SIJU
SMT.BINDU GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1
PRASANNAN,
S/O.KRISHNAN KUTTY, PRASANNA BHAVANAM,
KRISHNAPURAM P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690 533.
*2
SHANAVAS, S/O.KUNJUMON, MULLASSERIL VEEDU, NJAKKANAL P.O
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690557. (DELETED)
THE SECOND RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT
*
THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT, AS PER ORDER DATED 8/11/2021 IN I.A NO. 1/2021 IN MACA 2762/2012. MACA 2762 of 2012 2 3 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLLAM - 691001. BY ADV SMT.SARAH SALVY, SC, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. HIS T MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA 2762 of 2012 3 J U D G M E N T ThisappealisattheinstanceoftheclaimantinOP(MV) No.603 of 2007 on the file of First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, challenging the award on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. 2. The appellant met with a road traffic accident on 11.09.2004, while she was pillion riding KL-04/N-2058 motorcycle ridden by the 2nd respondent, in a rash and negligent manner. She suffered injuries including comminuted fracture of right humerus. She wasadmitted and treated at A M Hospital, Karunagapally, for 20 days. Even after discharge, she was continuing her treatment and was admitted for three days for removalofimplants. She approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-,but theTribunalawardedonlyRs.56,500/-. Hence this Appeal. MACA 2762 of 2012 4 3. The1strespondentwastheowneroftheoffending motorcycle, 2nd respondent was its rider and the 3rd respondent was its Insurer. Before the Tribunal, Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent-Insurer contested the case, but admitted the policy.Accordingtothem,the2ndrespondentriderhadno drivinglicence and hence therewasviolation ofthepolicy conditions. So'payand recovery'wasorderedinfavourof the Insurer. 4. In the appeal, the 1st respondent-owner of the offendingvehicleoptedtoremainabsentinspiteofservice ofnotice.The2ndrespondent-riderwasremovedfromthe party array. The 3rd respondent-Insurer entered appearance through counsel and admitted the policy, but reiterated their contention that there was violation of the policy conditions. MACA 2762 of 2012 5 5.Heardlearnedcounselfortheappellantandlearned counsel for the 3rd respondent-Insurer. 6.The maingrievanceof theappellantisthatthough shewas a house wifeagedonly48,learnedTribunalfixed her notional income @ Rs.2,500/-, which is on the lower side. Relying on the decision Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951], learned counsel for the appellant would submit that since the accidentwas intheyear 2004,she waseligibletogether notional income fixed @ Rs.4,500/-. Even if she was a housewife earning no income, her services to the family had to betakeninto accountand so,her monthly income can be notionally fixed as Rs.4,500/-. She suffered comminuted fracture of right humerus, and she was hospitalisedfor23daysintotal. Solossofearningcanbe MACA 2762 of 2012 6 taken for a periodofthreemonths @ Rs.4,500/-.So, she is eligible to get Rs.13,500/-. After deducting Rs.5,000/- alreadyawarded,sheisentitledtogetthebalanceamount of Rs.8,500/- under the head 'loss of earning. 7.Towardsbystanderexpenses,thisCourtisinclined to award Rs.1,500/- more as she was hospitalised for 23 days in total. 8. Towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- more is awardedasshehassufferedcomminutedfractureonright humerus with hospitalisation of 23 days. 9.Towards discomfort,learned Tribunal awardedonly Rs.5,000/-.Sincetheappellant was a housewifeaged 48, comminuted fracture of righthumerus mighthave caused muchdiscomfort,inherdaytodayaffairs.SothisCourtis inclined to award Rs.10,000/- more towards, discomfort suffered by her. MACA 2762 of 2012 7 10.Thecompensationawardedunder allother heads seems to be reasonable, and hence it needs no modification. Head of claim Amount Amount ifference to D warded by a awarded in be drawn as the Tribunal appeal enhanced compensation Loss of earning Rs.5,000/- Rs.13,500/- Rs.8,500/- ystander B expenses Rs.2,000/- Rs.3,500/- Rs.1,500/- Pain & suffering Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.5,000/- Discomfort Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.25,000/- 11. In the result, the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation ofRs.25,000/-(8,500 + 1,500+ 5,000 + 10,000). 12. The3rdrespondent-Insurerisdirectedtodeposit enhanced compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupee Twenty Five Thousandonly),with 7.5% interestper annum,from the dateof petition tillthedateofdeposit,(excluding164 MACA 2762 of 2012 8 days of delay in filing the appeal) before the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,Kollam, within a periodof twomonthsfrom thedate ofreceiptofacopy of this judgment. Learned Tribunal shall disburse that amount to the appellant after deducting liabilities, if any, towardstax,balancecourtfee,legalbenefitfundsetc.The pay and recovery order in favour of the 3rd respondent-Insurer is confirmed. Theappeal isallowedtotheextent asabove,andno order is made as to costs. Sd/- SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE DSV/-