Kerala High Court
George Abraham vs Manikandan on 1 July, 2021
M.A.C.A.No.1775/2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2021 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1943
MACA NO. 1775 OF 2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 740/2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD
APPELLANT/S:
GEORGE ABRAHAM,
S/O.THOMAS GEROGE, KOCHIKUZHI HOUSE, KONDAZHY DESOM, THALAPPILLY
TALUK, TRICHUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM
SRI.O.K.MURALEEDHARAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 MANIKANDAN,
S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, KOMBRATH HOUSE, THEKKETHARA,
PAZHAYANNUR DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THIRUVILLWAMALA,
THRISSUR(DRIVER OF KL 8AH 1137 MINIDOR TEMPO),
NO RELIEF CLAIMED AGAISNT R1.
2 ANDAVAN M.A,
S/O.ARUMUGAN, MALAKKARAN HOUSE, KANIYARKODE P.O,
THIRUVILLWAMALA, THRISSUR - 680 004.
(OWNER OF KL 8 AH 1137 MINIDOR TEMPO).
3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
PARK HOUSE BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, ROUND NORTH,
THRISSUR - 680 001,
POLICY NO 100600/31/07/02/00027363
(VALID FROM 08-03-2008 TO 07-03-2009).
BY ADV SRI.S.ARUN RAJ
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.1775/2012 2
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal submitted by the claimant in O.P.
(MV).No.740 of 2008, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Ottappalam. The claim petition is filed by the appellant
seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to him in a motor
accident occurred on 08.04.2008. According to him, the accident
occurred when the appellant was traveling as a pillion rider on
the motor cycle, it was hit by a tempo van driven by the 1 st
respondent. The said vehicle was owned by the 2 nd respondent
and was insured with the 3rd respondent. Appellant sustained
serious injuries in the accident, which affected his earning
capacity. According to him, he was an agriculturist aged 55 at
the time of accident and his monthly income is claimed to be
Rs.5,000/- at the time of the accident.
2. The 3rd respondent insurance company alone
contested the matter by filing a written statement. They disputed
the liability and quantum of compensation. The evidence in this
case consists of oral evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence
of A1 to A16 from the side of the appellant. Even though, no oral
evidence was adduced, Exts.B1 and B2 were marked from the
side of the respondent.
3. After the trial, the Tribunal held that the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the tempo van
and held that the 2nd and 3rd respondents are liable to pay
compensation. Quantum of compensation was fixed as
Rs.41,750/- and the 3rd respondent insurance company was
directed to deposit the said amount along with interest at the
rate of 8% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation, the appellant filed this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also
the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that,
even though the appellant sustained serious injuries and
consequent disability, it was not considered by the Tribunal. In
order to substantiate disability, he produced Ext.A12 disability
certificate, wherein a competent doctor from the Department of
Orthopedic, Government Medical College, Thrissur has certified
that the percentage of disability is 10%. It is evident that the
petitioner has availed treatment in the said hospital. The nature
of injuries justifies the extent of percentage of disability assessed
by the Tribunal. Hence this court is of the view that the
percentage of disability certified therein can be accepted. Thus,
the appellant is entitled for compensation under the head of
permanent disability by taking the percentage of disability as
10%.
6. Next question is relating to the monthly income of the
appellant. Even though an amount of Rs.5,000/- was claimed, the
Tribunal has taken the monthly income as Rs.2,500/- only. Going
by the principles set out in Ramanchandrappa v. Manager,
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd. [(2011)13 SCC
236] and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India
Insurance Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735], it is on lower side.
This Court is of the view that in the light of the principles laid
down therein, the entire monthly income in his claim by the
appellant I.e Rs 5,000/- can be taken into consideration. Since
the appellant is aged 55 at the time of accident, the relevant
multiplier applicable is 11. In that circumstances, the
compensation for disability can be fixed as Rs.66,000/- [5,000 x
12 x 11 x 10%].
7. The learned counsel for the appellant further points
out that, the amount awarded towards actual loss of earning is
also on lower side. He points out that, the period taken by the
Tribunal is only three months. According to him, it is discernible
from the observations in the award itself that, he was under
plaster for a period of three months and on account of that he
could recommence his duties only after some more time.
Considering the above aspect, this Court is of the view that the
period for granting actual loss of earning can be taken as four
months. Accordingly, compensation under this head is re-fixed as
Rs.20,000/- (5000 x 4). The Tribunal has already awarded an
amount of Rs.7,500/- under this head and therefore, the balance
amount receivable by the appellant shall be Rs.12,500/-.
In the above circumstances, the appeal is allowed and by
granting an additional amount of Rs. 78,500/- (Rupees seventy
eight thousand five hundred only) and The 3 rd respondent is
directed to deposit the said amount along with interest and costs
as ordered by the Tribunal within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
DG
