K.V.Yacob vs Muhammed Imthyas
2021 Latest Caselaw 7412 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       MACA.No.1410 OF 2008

  AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1317/2004 DATED 06-10-2007 OF
        MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL MUVATTUPUZHA


APPELLANT/S:

               K.V.YACOB, S/O.VARGHESE
               KIZHAKKUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, UPPUKANDOM, AYROOR,,
               KOTTAPADY.

               BY ADVS.
               SMT.ANEY PAUL
               SHRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU

RESPONDENT/S:

      1        MUHAMMED IMTHYAS, S/O.SAPHYA & OTHERS
               AT MILL HOUSE, 11/235D, PERUMBAVOOR.

      2        TINNS S/O.ELDHOSE KAVUMGAPPILLY HOUSE
               NELLIKUZHI KARA, ERAMALLOOR VILLAGE,,
               KOTHAMANGALAM.

      3        THE BRANCH MANAGER THE NATIONAL
               INSURANCE CO.LTD, ERNAKULAM.

               R3 BY ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY

     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 03.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 MACA.No.1410 OF 2008                       2


                                P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                        -----------------------------------------------
                               M.A.C.A. No.1410 of 2008
                             --------------------------------------
                       Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2021


                                       JUDGMENT

The appellant is a claimant in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1317/2004 on the

file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha. It is a

claim petition filed by the appellant under Sec. 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act for compensation for the injury sustained in a motor

accident.

2. The short facts are like this :

The appellant sustained injuries due to the negligent driving of

the respondent No.2, who is the driver of the vehicle bearing

registration No.KL-17/770. The alleged accident happened on

16.5.2004. The vehicle was owned by respondent No.1 and insured

with respondent No.3. The appellant claimed compensation for the

injury sustained to him.

3. To substantiate the case, the appellant produced Exts. A1

to A16. Ext.B1 is the policy produced by the respondent. After going

through evidence and documents, the Tribunal awarded a total

compensation of Rs.35,915/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of

compensation, this appeal is filed.

4. Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for the

Insurance Company.

5. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the monthly

income of the appellant assessed as Rs.2,500/- is too low. The counsel

submitted that the accident happened in the year 2004 and even a

coolie will get an amount of Rs.4,500/-. The appellant was aged only

37 years at the time of the accident. In the light of the judgment in

Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance

Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951], the monthly

income can be safely fixed as Rs.4,500/- because the accident was in

the year 2004. If that is the case, the appellant is entitled an

additional compensation of Rs.6,000/- more towards loss of earning,

because the Tribunal assessed the loss of earning for 3 months at the

rate of Rs.2,500/-. The Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.8,000/-

towards pain and suffering. After perusing the injuries sustained to

the appellant, I think another amount of Rs.7,000/- can be awarded on

that head also. As far as loss of amenities concerned, only Rs.5,000/-

is awarded. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I

think an amount of Rs.10,000/- more can be awarded for the loss of

amenities also. Therefore, the enhanced amount, the appellant is

entitled can be summarised like this :

      Sl.No.                 Head                 Amount
         1     Loss of earning                Rs.6,000/-
         3     Pain and suffering             Rs.7,000/-
         6     Loss of amenities              Rs.10,000/-
               Total                          Rs.23,000/-

6. The Tribunal found that respondent No.3 is to pay the

amount and liberty is granted to recover the amount from respondent

Nos 1 and 2, because there was no driving licence to the driver.

Therefore, 'pay and recovery' order can be given for the enhanced

amount also.

Therefore, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award is

modified. The appellant is entitled an enhanced compensation of

Rs.23,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of

application till realization. The 3 rd respondent is liable to pay the

enhanced compensation. The 3 rd respondent is entitled to recover the

enhanced amount with interest also from respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS