P.P.Varghese vs Sureshbabu
2021 Latest Caselaw 15037 Ker

MACA No.403 of 2014                1

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
         FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1943
                          MACA NO. 403 OF 2014
  AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV No.927/2011 DATED 16.12.2013 OF MOTOR
                  ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOTTAYAM.
APPELLANT/S:

             P.P.VARGHESE
             PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, ERAVUCHIRA POST, THOTTAKKAD
             VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
             SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY



RESPONDENT/S:

     1       SURESHBABU
             MATTATHIL HOUSE, MANGANAM POST, MUTTAMBALAM - 686 018.

     2       SHOBY
             MANIYALA HOUSE, PICHANATTUKULAMBHAGOM, THOTTACKAD KARA
             - 686 539.

     3       THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
             KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

             FOR R3 BY ADVS.
             SRI.M.J.PAVU
             SRI.TITUS MANI




      THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 16.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA No.403 of 2014                          2

                                       JUDGMENT

This is an appeal submitted by the claimant in

OP(MV)No.927 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. The claim petition was filed

seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to him in

a motor accident occurred on 26.02.2011. The accident

occurred when the motor cycle ridden by the appellant was

hit by a tourist bus driven by the 2 nd respondent. The

said vehicle was owned by the 1st respondent and insured

with the 3rd respondent.

2. According to the claimant, he was aged 46 years

at the time of accident and was getting a monthly income

of Rs.15,000/- from his avocation as a musician. He

further contended that the petitioner sustained physical

disability and the same was certified as 8%. Respondents

1 and 2 filed a joined written statement disputing the

negligence and the quantum of compensation. It was also

contended that the vehicle was covered with valid

insurance policy issued by the 3rd respondent and if at

all they were found liable, it has to be deposited by the

Insurance Company. The 3rd respondent filed a written

statement admitting the policy but attributed negligence

on the part of the appellant. The quantum of compensation

was also disputed by the 3rd respondent. The evidence in

this case consists of oral evidence of PW1 who was the

petitioner himself and the documentary evidence of

Exts.A1 to A11 from the side of the appellant. The

disability certificate was marked as X1.

3. Heard both sides.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends

that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side.

According to him the monthly income taken by the Tribunal

is only Rs.6,000/- which is grossly inadequate. The

learned counsel contends that the amount of Rs.15,000/-

claimed by the appellant as monthly income is reasonable

in all respects. It is seen that even though he has

produced Exts.A6, A7 and A8 documents to substantiate the

same, as he failed to prove the same in the manner

contemplated under law, it was not accepted by the

Tribunal. This Court finds no infirmity in not accepting

the said documents but despite the same, the monthly

income adopted by the Tribunal appears to be on lower

side. In the light of the principles in the decisions

rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa

v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company

Ltd. [(2011)13 SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional

Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited[(2014)2

SCC 735], an amount of Rs.8,000/- can be treated as a

reasonable monthly income in this case as the accident

occurred in the year, 2011. In such circumstances, the

amount of compensation for continuing permanent

disability is fixed as Rs.99,840/- (Rs.8,000x12x13x8%).

The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.74,880/- under

this head. Hence, the additional amount receivable by the

appellant under this head is Rs.24,960/-. Since the

monthly income is revised, the appellant is entitled for

additional amount under the head of loss of earnings. The

Tribunal has awarded compensation for a period of five

months under this head and consequent to the revision of

monthly income as Rs.8,000/-, a further sum of

Rs.10,000/- is receivable by him. Similarly, the amount

awarded under the head of pain and suffering is

Rs.20,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries and the

date of accident, this Court is of the view that a

further sum of Rs.15,000/- can be granted under this

head. Similarly, the amount granted by the Tribunal

towards loss of amenities is Rs.15,000/- only. As it is

discernible from the records that he sustained physical

disability as well, a further sum of Rs.15,000/- can be

granted under this head.

In such circumstances, in addition to the amount

awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is entitled for a

further sum of Rs.64,960/- (Rupees Sixty four thousand

Nine hundred and Sixty only) [Rs.24,960+10,000+15,000+15,000]

and the said amount shall be deposited by the 3rd

respondent/Insurance Company along with interest at the

rate of 8.5% within a period of three months from the

date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

The above appeal is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE

pkk