Anish vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 11734 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

  FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                    MACA.No.1746 OF 2014

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 895/2008 DATED 28-02-2014 OF MOTOR
           ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PERUMBAVOOR


APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP(M.V.) NO.895/208:

            ANISH
            S/O.KUMARAN, MEKKATTUMAIL HOUSE, THURAVOOR KARA,
            THURAVOOR P.O.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.REJI GEORGE
            SMT.ANUPAMA JOHNY

RESPONDENT/SRESPONDENT NO.3 IN O.P.(M.V.895/2008:

            UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
            JOSE TRUST BUILDING, OPP.Y.M.C.A., CHITTOOR
            ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682014.

            R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW

OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW, SC FOR R2

     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 09.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 MACA.No.1746 OF 2014                  2




                          P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                    --------------------------------------------
                         M.A.C.A. No.1746 of 2014
                       --------------------------------------
                   Dated this the 9th day of April, 2021


                                  JUDGMENT

The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 895/2008 on

the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, P.erumbavoor. It

is a claim petition filed by the appellant under Sec.166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act for compensation for the personal injuries

sustained to him. (Hereinafter, the parties are mentioned in

accordance to their rank before the Tribunal).

2. The short facts are like this :

On 29.7.2005 at 2.30 pm, an autorickshaw bearing

registration No. KEE- 986 driven by the 2 nd respondent along the

Ernakulam-Aluva National Highway road in a rash and negligent

manner, hit the motor cycle in which the petitioner was the

pillion rider. He was thrown to the road and a bus bearing

registration No.KL-17/2224 had run over him resulting in

grievous injuries to him. According to the petitioner, the accident

occurred due to the negligence of the 2 nd respondent and

therefore, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay

the compensation to the petitioner.

3. To substantiate the case, the petitioner produced

Exts.A1 to A12. Ext.X1 is the disability certificate. After going

through the evidence and the documents, the Tribunal fixed a

total compensation of Rs.2,73,977/- with interest at the rate of

8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, this appeal is filed.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for

the 3rd respondent.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner sustained very serious injuries and the loss of earning

is assessed only for a period of 4 months. The counsel for the

petitioner takes me through the injuries sustained by the

petitioner. Considering the serious nature of the injuries, I think

the loss of earning can be assessed for a period of 6 months,

instead of 4 months. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled an

enhanced amount of Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earning. Then,

the counsel submitted that towards loss of amenities, the

Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.21,000/-. The counsel

submitted that there is 8% disability and even now, the petitioner

is suffering from different medical casualties because of the

injuries sustained. The counsel submitted that the compensation

awarded for loss of amenities is too low. Considering the entire

facts and circumstances of this case, I think an amount of

Rs.5,000/- more can be awarded towards loss of amenities also.

6. Then, the counsel submitted that even now, the

petitioner is continuing his treatment. The counsel submitted

that no amount is awarded for future treatment. The counsel for

the 3rd respondent oppose the same. The counsel submitted that

there is no evidence adduced by the petitioner and there is no

claim also for that in the claim petition. But the counsel for the

petitioner made available Ext.A7 treatment certificate, in which

it is stated that "he will require regular urethral dilatation".

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I

think an amount of Rs.5,000/- can be allowed towards future

treatment. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled an enhanced

compensation in the following manner :

    Sl.No.                 Head              Amount
        1     Loss of earning             Rs.6,000/-
        2     Loss of amenities           Rs.5,000/-
        3     Future treatment            Rs.5,000/-
              Total                       Rs.16,000/-

7. The petitioner is entitled interest at the rate of 8%

per annum for an amount of Rs.11,000/- and the petitioner is

entitled interest for future treatment (Rs.5,000/-) only from the

date of award.

Therefore, this appeal is allowed in part.

1) The impugned award is modified. The petitioner is entitled an enhanced compensation of Rs.16,000/-. The petitioner is entitled interest at the rate of 8% per annum for Rs.11,000/- from the date of application till realization. For the compensation awarded for future treatment (Rs.5,000/-), the petitioner is entitled interest at the rate of 8% only from the date of award till realisation.

2) The 3rd respondent is directed to pay the enhanced compensation with interest to the petitioner.

SD/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS