Kerala High Court
Radhakrishnan vs Manoj A.V on 8 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1943
MACA.No.761 OF 2011
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 718/2007 DATED 06-08-2010 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 47 YEARS,
S/O.BALAN (LATE) MUNDATHARA HOUSE, PENAKAM,,
PERUVALLUR P.O., CHAVAKKAD.
BY ADV. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 MANOJ A.V.
S/O.VASU, ALATTU HOUSE, EDAKKALATHUR,, NEAR
EDAKKALATHUR CHURCH, THRISSUR,, PIN 680608,
(DRIVER AUTO RICKSHAW KL 88651).
2 NANDANAN A.V. AGE NOT KNOWN
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, ALATTU HOUSE,,
EDAKKALATHUR P.O., PARAPPUR VIA., THRISSUR,, PIN
680552, (OWNER OF AUTO RICKSHAW KL 88651).
3 THE ORINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
BO2, K.P.N.SHOPPING COMPLEX, OPP.THIRUVAMBADY,
TEMPLE, SHORNUR ROAD, THRISSUR, PIN 680530,,
POLICY NO.7026/2007, VALID FROM 30/10/2006 TO,
29/10/2007.
R1, R3 BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 08.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA.No.761 OF 2011 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.761 of 2011
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2021
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.718/2007 on
the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam. It
was a claim petition under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. The short facts are like this :
On 17.3.2007, the petitioner was riding his motor cycle
bearing registration No. KL8-AB 2459 through Parappur-
Kaiparambu road. When he reached at the accident spot at
Ponnore, a goods autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-8 Y
8651 driven by the 1st respondent rashly and negligently
through the same road came from the opposite direction and hit
on the motor cycle. Due to the impact of the accident, the
petitioner sustained severe injuries. According to the petitioner,
the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the 1 st
respondent, the driver of the autorickshaw. The second
respondent is the owner and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of
the autorickshaw.
3. To substantiate the case, the petitioner produced
Exts.A1 to A12. Ext.B1 is the policy copy. After going through
the evidence and the documents, the Tribunal passed an award
of Rs.58,500/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from
the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation, this appeal is filed.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the
3rd respondent.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the petitioner as
Rs.2,500/-. The counsel submitted that the accident occurred in
the year 2007. The claim of the petitioner is that he used to get
an amount of Rs.5,500/- per month. The counsel submitted that
even a coolie will get an amount of Rs.5,500/- in the year 2007. I
think there is some force in the argument of the petitioner. In
the light of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in
Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951], the monthly
income of the petitioner can be safely fixed as Rs.5,500/-
because the Apex Court observed that even a coolie will get an
amount of Rs.4,500/- in the year 2004. If that is taken, the loss
of earning is to be re-assessed. The counsel submitted that the
Tribunal assessed the loss of earning only for 4 months.
According to the counsel, the petitioner sustained very serious
injuries and he was hospitalized for several days and he was
bedridden thereafter. The counsel submitted that he was not
able to work for about 12 months. Admittedly, there is no
evidence to prove the claim of the petitioner. Considering the
entire facts and circumstances of this case, according to me, the
loss of earning can be assessed for a period of 7 months. If that
is taken, loss of earning is to be re-assessed in the following
manner :
Rs.5,500 x 7 = Rs. 38,500/-
6. The amount already granted is Rs.10,000/-, which is to
be deducted from the above amount. Then the balance amount
will be Rs.28,500/- (38,500- 10,000).
7. Then the counsel submitted that the Tribunal awarded
only an amount of Rs.15,000 towards pain and sufferings. The
counsel takes me through the relevant portion of the judgment in
which the injuries sustained to the petitioner is narrated in detail.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I think
an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- can be granted towards pain
and sufferings. Towards loss of amenities, the Tribunal awarded
only an amount of Rs.5,000/-. The petitioner is entitled an
additional amount of Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, the enhanced amount
entitled by the petitioner can be summarized like this :
Sl.No. Head Amount
1 Loss of earning Rs.28,500/-
2 Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/-
3 Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.48,500/-
8. The petitioner is entitled interest for the above amount
at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of application till
realization.
Therefore, this appeal is allowed in part.
1) The impugned award is modified. The appellant/petitioner
is entitled an enhanced compensation of Rs.48,500/- with
interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of
petition till realization.
2) The 3rd respondent is directed to pay the enhanced
compensation with interest to the petitioner.
SD/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
