Kerala High Court
M.K.Narayanan vs M/S.New India Assurance Co.Ltd on 2 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1943
MACA NO. 2453 OF 2010
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(MV) 1408/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL , MANJERI
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
M.K.NARAYANAN
S/O.S.KRISHNA PANICKER,, MALAMEL KODUGALATH HOUSE, PALACE
ROAD, NILAMBUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:
M/S.NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.
IST FLOOR, VARIKKODAN BUILDING, NILAMBUR ROAD, MANJERI
P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 2453 OF 2010
2
JUDGMENT
The appellant was the petitioner in O.P(MV)
No.1408/2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Manjeri. The respondent in the appeal was
the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal. The parties are
for the sake of convenience referred to as per their
status in the claim petition.
2. The facts in brief, relevant for the
determination of the appeal, are: on 29.5.2001 while the
petitioner was travelling as pillion on a motorcycle from
Wandoor to Nilambur, a mini bus bearing Reg.No.KL-05/A
-6637 driven by the 3rd respondent hit the motorcycle.
The motorcycle was driven by the 1 st respondent and
insured with the 2nd respondent. The bus was owned by
the 4th respondent and insured with the 5th respondent.
The petitioner contended that the accident occurred due
to the rash and negligent driving by the drivers of both
MACA NO. 2453 OF 2010
the vehicles Therefore, the petitioner asserted that the
respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to him, which he quantified at
Rs.1,75,000/-.
3. The respondents 1,3 and 5 did not contest the
proceedings and were set ex parte.
4. The 2nd respondent had filed a written
statement admitting that the motorcycle had a valid
insurance coverage. However, it was contended that
the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part
of the 3rd respondent - the driver of the bus.
5. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and
materials on record, by the impugned award allowed the
claim petition, in part, by permitting the petitioner to
realise an amount of Rs.80,756/- with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the
date of realisation along with proportionate costs from
the 2nd respondent.
MACA NO. 2453 OF 2010
6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation,
the petitioner is in appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/petitioner and the learned counsel appearing
for the 2nd respondent/insurer of the motorcycle.
8. The appellant examined himself as PW1 and
Exts.A1 to A9 series were marked in evidence. The
respondents did not adduce any evidence.
9. The sole question that emerges for
consideration in the appeal is whether the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and
just?
Notional income
10. The petitioner had stated that he was a Medical
Representative by profession and earning a monthly
income of Rs.5,000/-. The Tribunal fixed the notional
income of the petitioner at Rs.2,000/- per month.
11. In Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
MACA NO. 2453 OF 2010
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited
[(2011) 13 SCC 236], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year
2004 at Rs.4,500/- per month.
12. Following the ratio in the afore-cited decision
and taking note of the fact that the accident occurred in
the year 2001, I re-fix the notional income of the
petitioner at Rs.3,000/- per month.
Loss of earnings
13. It is on record that the petitioner had
sustained a head injury and a fracture of the fronto
parietal bone. He was hospitalised for a period of 14
days. The Tribunal held that the petitioner was
incapacitated for a period of six months.
14. In view of the re-fixation of the notional
income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month, I re-fix
the compensation under the head 'loss of earnings' at
MACA NO. 2453 OF 2010
Rs.18,000/-,i.e., an enhancement of Rs.10,000/-.
Bystander expenses
15. It is proved as per Ext.A2 wound certificate and
Ext.A3 discharge summary that the petitioner was
treated as an inpatient for a period of 14 days. The
Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.1,400/- towards
'bystander expenses', at the rate of Rs.100/-, which
according to me is on the lower side. Therefore, I re-fix
the 'bystander expenses' at Rs.200/- per day for a period
of 14 days, i.e., a total amount of Rs.2,800/-.
Pain and suffering
16. The appellant had sustained a head injury and
a fracture of the fronto parietal bone. He was treated as
an inpatient for a period of 14 days. The Tribunal also
assessed that the petitioner has a disability of 15%.
However, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of
Rs.10,000/- as compensation for 'pain and suffering' as
MACA NO. 2453 OF 2010
against the claim of Rs.25,000/- which again according to
me is on the lower side. Therefore, I enhance the
compensation under the said head by a further amount
of Rs.10,000/-.
Other heads of claim
17. With respect to the other heads of
compensation, I find that the Tribunal has awarded
reasonable and just compensation.
18. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings
and materials on record and the law laid down in the
afore-cited decision, I am of the definite opinion that the
appellant/petitioner is entitled for enhancement of
compensation as modified and re-calculated above, i.e.,
an enhancement by a further amount of Rs.21,400/-
namely Rs.10,000/- under the head 'loss of earning',
Rs.1400/- under the head 'bystander expenses' and
Rs.10,000/- under the head compensation for 'pain and
MACA NO. 2453 OF 2010
suffering'.
In the result, the appeal is allowed, in part, by
enhancing the compensation by a further amount of
Rs.21,400/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum on
the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till
the date of deposit, after deducting the interest for a
period of 1630 days, i.e., the period of delay in
representing the appeal and as ordered by this Court on
22.11.2010 in C.M.Appli. No.3070/2010, and
proportionate costs. The 2nd respondent shall pay the
the enhanced compensation by depositing the amount
awarded in the appeal before the Tribunal with interest
and proportionate costs within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the
judgment. The Tribunal shall disburse the enhanced
compensation to the appellant/petitioner, in accordance
with law.
ma/02/08/2021 Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
