Kerala High Court
K.Narayanan vs C.M.Thomas on 9 March, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942
MACA.No.353 OF 2007
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1252/2001 DATED 01-04-2006 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
K.NARAYANAN
AGED 66 YEARS, KURIKOLAT HOUSE,, PUZHATHI AMSOM,
EDACHERRY,, PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 C.M.THOMAS
AGED 46 YEARS, ASWATHY,, PUZHATHI AMSOM, EDACHERRY,
P.O.PULLIKKUNNU.
2 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR.
R1 BY ADV. SMT.RAJI.T.BHASKAR(B/O,NO MEMO)
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.K.S.SANTHI FOR R2
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09-03-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
M.A.C.A.No.353/ 2007
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.353 of 2007
-------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of March, 2021
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the quantum of
compensation fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Thalassery in the Award dated 1.4.2006 in O.P.(MV) No.
1252/2001. It was an application under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act.
2. The short facts are like this: The appellant was walking
through the road margin towards the Old Post Office Junction,
Pallikkunnu, Kannur and when he reached near Grand Hotel at
Pallikkunnu, a motor cycle bearing Registration No. KL-13/E 8137
came from behind and hit the petitioner on his left leg. He fell
down and he was badly injured. According to the appellant, the
accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the
M.A.C.A.No.353/ 2007
driver of the motor cycle. Therefore, the claim petition was filed
claiming Rs.1,70,000/- as compensation.
3. To substantiate the case, Exts.A1 to A6 were marked
on the side of the claimant. The claimant himself was examined
as PW1. After going through the evidence and documents, the
Tribunal passed an Award of Rs.35,250/- with interest @ 7% per
annum. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, this appeal
is filed.
4. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for
the second respondent.
5. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the
incident happened in the year 2001. The Tribunal fixed the
notional income of the appellant as Rs.1,500/- per month. The
counsel submitted that the appellant was working as a sales man
in Manavatty Gold Jewellery, Kannur. Ext.A5 is the salary
certificate. There is some force in the argument of the learned
counsel. Even a coolie will get more than Rs.1,500/- per month.
In Ramachandrappa V. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co., Ltd. (2011 (13) SCC 236) the Apex Court
fixed Rs.4,500/- as the monthly income to a coolie in the year
M.A.C.A.No.353/ 2007
2004. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I think the
monthly income of the appellant can be fixed at Rs. 3,000/-
instead of Rs. 1,500/-. If that is the case, the appellant is entitled
some more amount for loss of earning. The amount already
awarded is Rs.3,000/-. The Tribunal assessed the loss of earning
for two months. Therefore the appellant is entitled for an
amount of Rs.3,000/- more towards loss of earning.
6. Towards extra nourishment, the Tribunal awarded only
Rs.1,000/-. The appellant sustained serious injuries. I think
another amount of Rs.5,00/- also can be increased in that head.
Towards pain and suffering, an amount of Rs.5,000/- can be
allowed. No amount is awarded towards loss of amenities. I
think an amount of Rs.5,000/- can be allowed on that head also.
Therefore, the enhanced amount of compensation can be
summarised like this:
1. Loss of amenities Rs.5,000/-
2. Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/-
3. Extra nourishment Rs. 5,00/-
4. Loss of earning Rs.3,000/-
Total Rs. 13,500/-
M.A.C.A.No.353/ 2007
7. The appellant is entitled for an enhanced
compensation of Rs.13,500/- with interest @ 7% per annum from
the date of application till realisation.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned
award is modified. The appellant is entitled for an enhanced
amount of compensation of Rs.13,500/- with interest @ 7% from
the date of application till realisation. The second respondent is
directed to pay the enhanced compensation with interest @ 7%
to the appellant.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE
al/-
