Alice Paul vs Mini Paulose
2021 Latest Caselaw 14839 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
         THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1943
                           MACA NO. 864 OF 2010
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(MV) 2895/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS
                        CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

             ALICE PAUL, AGED 70 YEARS,
             WIFE OF DR.C.I.PAUL, CHEMALA HOUSE,, LOVE DALE, HILL
             PALACE P.O.,, THIRUVANKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK,,
             ERNAKULAM.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
             SRI.ARUN GOPAN
             SMT.ANILA PETER
             SMT.BEENA DEVASSY
             SMT.K.N.RAJANI
             SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

     1       MINI PAULOSE,
             W/O.PAULOSE, MATTATHIL HOUSE, EZHAKKARANAD SOUTH, MANEED
             P.O., PIRAVOM.

     2       M.V.PAULOSE, S/O.VARGHESE,
             MATTATHIL HOUSE, NEAR MEKKADUMATTOM,, KURISUPALLY,
             NECHOOR, MANEED P.O., PIRAVOM.

     3       THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
             LIMITED, LAYAM ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA.

             BY ADV SMT.DEEPA GEORGE


     THIS MOTOR ACCIDE`NT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA NO. 864 OF 2010             2

                           JUDGMENT

The appellant was the petitioner in OP(MV)

No.2895 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The respondents in the

appeal were the respondents before the Tribunal.

2. The facts in brief, relevant for the

determination of the appeal, are: on 8.8.2005, while the

appellant was walking through the Hill Palace -

Tripunithura road, a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-

Z/3715 (motorcycle) ridden by the 2 nd respondent in a

rash and negligent manner hit the appellant. She

sustained serious injuries including a fracture of her

right femur and was treated at the Medical Trust

Hospital, Ernakulam and RCM Hospital, Tripunithura,

in three different spells spanning 23 days. The appellant

was a home maker and her notional monthly income was

fixed at of Rs.2,000/-. The 1 st respondent was the owner

and the 3rd respondent was the insurer of the vehicle.

The appellant claimed a total compensation of

Rs.3,09,000/- from the respondents, which was limited

to Rs.3,00,000/-

3. The respondents did not contest the

proceedings and were set ex parte.

4. The appellant produced and marked Exts.A1 to

A8 in evidence.

5. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and

materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part,

by permitting the appellant to recover an amount of

Rs.1,08,963/- with interest @ 7 % per annum from the

date of petition till the date of realization with

proportionate costs.

6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner is in appeal.

7. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/petitioner and the learned counsel appearing

for the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company.

8. The sole question that arises for consideration

in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just.

9. Ext.A5 charge sheet filed by the Kochi Traffic

Police proves that the accident was caused due to the

negligence of the 2nd respondent, who rode the

motorcycle in a negligent manner. Ext.A4 insurance

policy substantiates that the motorcycle was insured

with the 3rd respondent. Therefore, it is the 3 rd

respondent who is liable to indemnify the 1 st respondent

of the liability caused on account of the accident.

10. The appellant had claimed that she was a home

maker. Her notional monthly income was fixed at

Rs.2,000/-. The Tribunal held that the appellant was

incapacitated for a period of five months and

accordingly, awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards

loss of earnings. Similarly, the appellant was awarded

the medical expenses, transportation charges and other

incidental expenses of Rs.5,000/-. I do not find any

error in the aforesaid assessment of compensation.

Compensation for Pain and Sufferings and Loss of

Amenities:

11. The appellant had claimed an amount of

Rs.60,000/- each under the heads compensation for pain

and sufferings and loss of amenities. The Tribunal

awarded an amount of Rs.18,000/- each, as

compensation under the above two heads.

12. Taking into account the fact that the appellant

had sustained a fracture on her neck of right femur and

that she had to undergo treatment in three spells for a

period of 23 days spanning from 8.8.2005 to 25.9.2006,

I am of the considered opinion that the appellant is

entitled for an enhancement of compensation under the

aforesaid heads by an amount of Rs.10,000/- each, i.e, a

total amount of Rs.20,000/-.

13. On an over all re-appreciation of the pleadings

and materials on record, I hold that the appellant is

entitled for an enhancement of compensation as

modified and recalculated above.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, by

enhancing the compensation by a further amount of

Rs.20,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date

of petition till the date of deposit, after deducting the

period of 65 days, i.e the period of delay in preferring

the appeal, as ordered by this Court on 24.3.2021 in

C.M.Appln. No.1 of 2010, and proportionate costs. The

3rd respondent shall deposit the enhanced compensation

awarded in this appeal with interest and proportionate

cost before the Tribunal within a period of two months

from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

judgment. The Tribunal shall disburse the enhanced

compensation to the appellant/petitioner in accordance

with law.

sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

pm