Hariharan vs Prasanna Kumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 5584 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

     TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942

                        MACA.No.3292 OF 2015(F)

  MEMORANDUM OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION
 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 30.08.2014
   IN OP(MV) NO.436 OF 2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
                             ALAPPUZHA



APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

             HARIHARAN
             SASTHAMANGALAM VEEDU,
             THOTTAPPALLY MURI, PURAKKADU

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
             SRI.A.R.DILEEP
             SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL
             SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

      1      PRASANNA KUMAR
             KOTTARATHIL VEEDU, PILAPPUZHA MURI,
             HARIPAD 690 514

      2      K.S.R.T.C
             REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
             695 001

             BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD
             TRANSPORT CORPN.
             BY ADV. SRI.JOHN MATHEW, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD
             TRANSPORT CORPORATION


     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11-02-2021, THE COURT ON 16-02-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA.No.3292 OF 2015(F)

                                    2



                                 JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed against the Award

dated 30.08.2014 in O.P.(M.V.) No.436/2008 on the file

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, by

the claimant, who is aggrieved by the quantum amount

awarded by the Tribunal.

2. Heard Sri.P.J.Joe Paul on behalf of the

appellant and Sri.P.C.Chacko, learned standing counsel

for the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation.

3. The appellant, who was working as a coolie,

met with an accident on 25.01.2008, while he was aged

43 years. The KSRTC bus belonging to the 2 nd

respondent hit the appellant while he was travelling

in a bicycle. As a result, the appellant suffered a

fracture on the pelvis and ilium bone. He was

hospitalized for 7 days and the Medical Board

certified 8% disability. The appellant claimed

₹1,20,000/- as compensation but the Tribunal awarded

only ₹44,648/-.

4. The appeal has been filed contending that the MACA.No.3292 OF 2015(F)

amount fixed as compensation was not in accordance

with the standards accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court and this Court and that the disability ought to

have been taken as 8% instead of 4%.

5. The counsel for the appellant relied on the

decision in Soman V. Jinesh Jamesh and Others reported

in [2020 (4) KHC 623] wherein this Court has relied on

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Ramachandrappa V. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance

Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and held

that notional income of a coolie which was fixed at

₹4,500/- per month in the year 2004, can be subjected

to yearly increment of ₹500/-. Applying the same

principle, in the case of the appellant, the accident

was occurred in January, 2008. Adding an increment of

₹1,500/-, the total monthly income can be safely fixed

as ₹6,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded ₹3,000/- on

this count. The Award passed by the Tribunal will be

modified by calculating the compensation on the basis

of monthly income of ₹6,000/-. So also, there is no MACA.No.3292 OF 2015(F)

basis for the Tribunal reducing the disability from 8%

to 4%.

6. The counsel for the appellant also relied on

the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in

Jinto John V. V.J.Linto and Others [2018 (1) KHC 362]

in support of the contention that once it is found

that compensation to which the claimant is entitled,

be it under any particular head or aggregate, is more

than what is claimed, its denial after assessment

would result in denial of just compensation.

7. It can be seen that the table shown in

paragraph 14 of the judgment of the Tribunal that the

Tribunal has awarded a sum of ₹9,000/- towards loss of

earning as against the claim for ₹36,000/-, which has

been calculated at 3 months salary at ₹3,000/- per

month. Since I have already found that the appellant

is entitled to ₹6,000/- per month as notional salary,

the amount awarded towards loss of earning is modified

as ₹18,000/- (6000 x 3). So also, towards permanent

disability, the claimant had claimed a sum of MACA.No.3292 OF 2015(F)

₹30,000/- and the Tribunal has awarded ₹20,160/-, on

the basis of ₹3,000/- per month as notional income and

disability of 4%. As I have already found that the

notional income is to be treated as ₹6,000/- and

permanent disability is to be treated as 8%, the

amount payable towards permanent disability will be

₹80,640/-. Towards compensation for loss of

amenities, the Tribunal has not granted any amount

though a sum of ₹15,000/- was claimed on that count.

I find that, it will be reasonable to allow a sum of

₹6,000/- towards loss of amenities. With the above

changes, the total compensation will stand enhanced to

₹1,20,128/- in the place of ₹44,648/- awarded by the

Tribunal.

8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The

decree passed by the Tribunal will stand modified

granting the claimant a total compensation of a sum of

₹1,20,128/-, which will be payable with interest at

the rate of 9% per annum from 11.04.2008 till

realisation and cost of ₹4,000/- from the 2nd MACA.No.3292 OF 2015(F)

respondent.

9. The claimant/appellant shall furnish his Bank

account details, on which the award amount is to be

credited and the amount payable as per this modified

decree shall be transferred to the said account by the

2nd respondent within a period of two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

In the circumstances of this case, there will be

no order as to costs.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI JUDGE

Pn