Kerala High Court
Mrs.Salila vs Balagopal on 25 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1942
MACA.No.1316 OF 2016(F)
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 26/2012 DATED 27-11-2015 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANT/S:
MRS.SALILA
AGED;59 YEARS, W/O DAYANANDAN, ILAYARAMPURAKKAL
HOUSE, KURIKUZHI DESOM, PO KAIPAMANAGALAM
VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM
RESPONDENT/S:
1 BALAGOPAL
S/O SUJITH, THAYYIL HOUSE, CHENTRAPINNI PO,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680687
2 SALEEM
S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN, M,ANJERITHODIKA HOUSE,
PALEMAD DESOM, PO, EDAKKARA VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT-679330
3 THE MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, 2ND FLOOR,
CLOBAL PLAZA, THRISSUR-680020
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.K.S.SANTHI, SC FOR R3
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 25.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. No. 1316 of 2016 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
-------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No. 1316 of 2016
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of February, 2021
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the claimant in O.P(M.V) 26/2012 on the file of
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. This application
is filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. The brief facts are as follows:- On 24.12.2011 at about
08.30 a.m, while the appellant was going as a pedestrian through
Moonnupeedika-Edamuttam National Highway and when he
reached at Koprakalam Junction, a motor cycle bearing Registration
No. KL-46/C 71 ridden by the 2 nd respondent in a rash and negligent
manner came from north to south direction hit down the petitioner
and caused serious injuries. Hence the appellant claimed an amount
of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation.
3. To substantiate the case, the appellant produced Exts.A1
to A12. One witness was also examined on the side of PW1. On
going through the evidence and documents, the Tribunal found that
the appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,59,325/- as
compensation with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the
date of petition. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, this
appeal is filed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the 3 rd
respondent.
5. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the notional
income fixed by the court below is Rs.4,000/-. The learned counsel
for the appellant submitted that the accident happened on
24.12.2011. Even a coolie will get more than that amount. The
counsel relied on the judgment of this Court Soman v. Jinesh
James and others [2020 (4) KHC 623] and held that the notional
income was fixed in that case at the rate Rs.7,500/- in the year
2010. The counsel also submitted that the amount awarded for
damage to clothing is too low. The counsel also submitted that the
bystander's expense ordered by the Tribunal is also in the lower
side. According to the counsel, the amount awarded towards the
heading pain and sufferings and loss of amenities is also too low.
6. The counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that there is no
evidence adduced by the appellants to substantiate the case and there
may not be any increase in compensation already awarded. The amount
claimed by the appellant and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is
summarised in the impugned award in the following manner :
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Basis vital details in
No. claimed (Rs.) Awarded a nut shell
(Rs.)
01 Loss of earnings 37,500 12,000 Rs.4,000x 3months
02 Transportation 3,000 1,000
expenses
03 Extra 6,000 1,000
nourishment
clothings
05 Bystander's 27,000 1,000
expenses
06 Medical expenses 75,000 61,025
07 Pain and suffering 50,000 25,000
08 Permanent 1,00,000 52,800 (48,000x11x10%)
disability
09 Loss of earning
power
10 Loss of amenities 30,000 5,000
3,31,500/- 1,59,325/- Rs.1,59,325/- along
Total (Limited to with interest @ 8%
Rs.2,00,000) p.a. from 16.1.2012
till realisation.
7. It is an admitted fact that the appellant is only aged 55.
He is a coolie. The notional income fixed by the Tribunal is
Rs.4,000/-. The income claimed by the appellant is Rs.7,500/-. Since
the accident happened in the year 2011 and taking into the principle
laid down by this Court in Soman's case (supra), the notional
income can be safely fixed as Rs.7,500/-. If that's the case, the
appellant is entitled for the enhanced amount towards loss of
earning and permanent disability. As far as the loss of earning is
concerned, the appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.22,500/-
(7,500x3). The appellant already received Rs. 12,000/-. That is to be
deducted. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for an amount of
Rs.10,500/- towards loss of earning. Then the appellant is entitled
for an amount of Rs. 500/- more towards damage to clothing. As far
as the bystander's expenses concerned, the appellant was in
Hospital for 25 days. If that is the case, he is entitled for a total
amount of Rs.3,750/- if Rs.150/- is taken as daily expense. An
amount of Rs.1000/- is already given by the Tribunal. If that is the
case, the amount payable is Rs.2,750/- (150x25=3750-1000=2,750).
As far as the pain and suffering is concerned, the appellant is
entitled for another amount of Rs.5,000/-. That also can be allowed.
As far as the permanent disability is concerned, the amount is
calculated based on Rs.4,000/- as the monthly income. Taking
Rs.7,500/- as monthly income, the appellant is entitled an amount of
Rs.99,000/- (7,500x12x11x10/100) towards permanent disability.
The appellant is already given Rs.52,800/- which is to be deducted
from the same. Then, the amount will be Rs.46,200/- (99,000-
52,800). As far as the loss of amenities concerned, the appellant is
entitled another amount of Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, the following
enhanced compensation is entitled to the appellant.
Sl.No. Head Amount
1 Loss of earning Rs.10,500/-
2 Damage to clothing Rs.500/-
3 Pain and suffering Rs.5,000/-
4 Bystander expenses Rs.2,750/-
5 Permanent disability Rs.46,200/-
6 Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.74,950/-
8. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for an enhanced
compensation of Rs.74,950/-. The appellant is also entitled for
interest at the rate of 8% from the date of application for the said
amount.
Therefore, this appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is
entitled an enhanced compensation of Rs.74,950/- with interest at
the rate of 8% from the date of application from the respondents.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
