Venugopalan vs Kaja Hussain
2021 Latest Caselaw 8384 Ker

M.A.C.A.No.403/2011               1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

     FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1942

                         MACA.No.403 OF 2011

 AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 426/2007 DATED 06-04-2010 OF MOTOR
             ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM


APPELLANT/S:

                VENUGOPALAN, AGED 49 YEARS,
                S/O.SANKARAN NAIR, KURIYIL VEEDU,
                MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD TALUK.

                BY ADV.SRI.R.SREEHARI
RESPONDENT/S:

       1        KAJA HUSSAIN,
                S/O.JAMAN MUHAMMED RAWTHER,
                RAWETHER HOUSE, GOVT.HOSPITAL JUNCTION,
                MANNARKKAD, PIN:678 582.

       2        THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
                BRANCH OFFICE, MANNARKKAD, PIN:678 582.

                R2 BY ADV. SMT.DEEPA GEORGE
                R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR

     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
     ON 12.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
     FOLLOWING:
 M.A.C.A.No.403/2011                    2




                                  JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of March, 2021

The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.(MV).No.426/2007 on

the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam. The

claim petition was filed by him seeking compensation for the

injuries sustained by him in a motor accident occurred on

19.09.2006. According to him he was aged 45 at the time of

accident and was working as a coffee vendor with a monthly

income of Rs.4,500/-. On account of the injuries sustained, he

claimed a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

2. The insurance company appeared and filed a

written statement, admitting the coverage of policy; but

disputed the liability on various grounds. The evidence in this

case consists of Exts.A1 to A9 from the side of the

appellant/petitioner and Exts.B1 to B3 from the side of the

respondents. After the trial, the Tribunal passed an award

allowing a total compensation of Rs.39,250/- and that amount

was directed to be deposited by the Insurance Company along

with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of

petition till realization along with costs.

3. Heard Sri.R.Sreehari, learned counsel for the

appellant, Sri.Rajesh Nambiar, learned counsel for the 1 st

respondent and Smt.Deepa George, learned counsel for the 2 nd

respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that

the monthly income taken by the Tribunal is only Rs.3,000/- as

against the claim of Rs.4,500/-. This is on lower side. Apart from

the above, he also disputed the amount awarded under the head

bystander expenses, pain and suffering, extra nourishment and

loss of amenities.

5. On going through the materials available on record,

this Court is of the view that the amount of monthly income taken

by the Tribunal is on lower side. In the light of the principles laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq v. Divisional

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

735] and Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the monthly

income can be reasonably re-fixed as Rs.4,500/- in this case,

which is in tune with the monthly income claimed by the

appellant. Consequent to the re-fixation of monthly income, he

will be entitled for an additional amount of Rs.4,500/- under the

head of loss of earning. With regard to the pain and suffering,

the amount awarded by the Tribunal is only Rs.12,000/-.

Considering the nature of injuries and the period of treatment

undergone by the appellant, the said amount can be fixed as

Rs.15,500/-, which is the claim put forward by the appellant.

Therefore, under this head appellant will be entitled for a further

sum of Rs.3,500/-. Next relevant ground is loss of amenities. As

against the claim of Rs.10,000/- an amount of Rs.7,000/- is seen

awarded by the Tribunal. Considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to re-fix the same as

Rs.10,000/-, as claimed by the appellant and therefore, an

amount of Rs.3,000/- will be the additional amount receivable by

the appellant under this head. Under the head extra

nourishment, as against the claim of Rs.4,000/-, an amount of

Rs.1,000/- is seen granted by the Tribunal. The said amount can

also be re-fixed as Rs.3,000/-, which is reasonable. Thus it will

result in an additional amount of Rs.2,000/-. Another head which

requires interference is transportation expenses. As against the

claim of Rs.5,000/-, an amount of Rs.1,000/- is seen awarded by

the Tribunal. According to the learned counsel for the appellant,

he was taken to the hospital on four occasions and hospital is

situated at 50km away from the residence of the appellant.

Therefore, an additional sum of Rs.2,000/- can be granted under

this head. Thus the total compensation payable to the appellant

in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal, can be fixed

as Rs.15,000/-(4500+3500+3000+2000+2000) and it is ordered

accordingly. The 2nd respondent shall deposit the said amount

along with interest and proportionate costs as ordered by the

Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt

of a copy of this judgment.

6. Appeal is allowed to that extent.

The appeal was filed with a petition to condone the delay of

242 days. While condoning the delay as per order dated

18.06.2019, this Court imposed a condition to the effect that the

appellant shall not be entitled for interest for the enhanced

compensation, if any, for the period of delay. In the light of the

above, the appellant shall not be entitled to claim interest for the

period of 242 days for the additional compensation awarded by

this Judgment.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE

DG