Kerala High Court
Biju Alex vs Radhamony Amma on 16 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942
MACA.No.1454 OF 2011
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 156/2003 DATED 31-05-2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PUNALUR
APPELLANT/S:
BIJU ALEX
PUTHEN PURACKAL, NEERALKODE,, AYOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:
1 RADHAMONY AMMA
KURUMANDAL, PARAVOOR P.O., KOLLAM-691301.
2 SHAJIMON,
PLAVILA VEEDU
KOONAYIL, PARAVOOR P.O., KOLLAM-691301.
3 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, LIC
BUILDING, III FLOOR, RESIDENCY ROAD, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM,,
PIN-691301.
4 K.MAHADEVAN
KANOOR, PALAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,, MYLOM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA,
KOLLAM-691571.
5 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, PARAMESWARAN PILLAI
BHAVAN,, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOLLAM-691301.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
R1 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.
R5 BY ADV. SMT.DEEPA GEORGE
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3, SMT.DEEPA GEORGE FOR R5
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-
03-2021, THE COURT ON 16-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA.No.1454 OF 2011 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
-----------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.1454 of 2021
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of March, 2021
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 156/2003 on the
file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punlaur. The above claim
petition was filed by the appellant under Sec.166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained to him in a motor vehicle
accident.
2. The short facts are like this :
On 29.11.2002, at about 8 am, the appellant was driving a jeep
bearing registration No.KL-2F/8578 through Ayoor-Oyoor road and
when he reached in front of St.George Church at Ayoor, it was hit by a
bus bearing registration No.KL.2K-4069, which was coming in the
opposite direction. The bus was driven by the 2 nd respondent in a rash
and negligent manner. The appellant sustained serious injuries as a
result of hit and he was treated at KIMS Hospital,
Thiruvananthapuram and SP Fort Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. The
appellant claimed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation from
respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who are the owner, driver and insurer
respectively of the offending bus. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are
the owner and insurer of jeep.
3. To substantiate the case, Exts. PW1 to PW8 were examined
on the side of the appellant. Ext.A1 to A14 were marked. One
document was marked on the side of the respondent as Ext.B1.
Exts.X1 and X2 are marked as court exhibits. After going through the
evidence and the documents, the Tribunal found that the appellant
was entitled an amount of Rs.2,00,075/- as compensation with interest
at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation, this appeal is filed.
4. Heard counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the 3 rd
and 5th respondents.
5. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal,
without any reason rejected the claim of the appellant for the cost of
medicine. The counsel submitted that the bills are produced for an
amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and the Tribunal awarded only an amount of
Rs.89,750/-. The counsel submitted that the bills are marked without
any objection from the side of the respondents and therefore, the
Tribunal erred in rejecting the above claim. The counsel submitted
that a specific contention is raised in ground 1 of the appeal
memorandum on this aspect.
6. I perused the available evidence and the documents and
also the finding of the Tribunal on this aspect. The Tribunal found
that the bill amount for Rs.89,750/- alone is admissible. The Tribunal
after perusing the entire bills produced by the appellant and also
after hearing the 3rd respondent, decided that the appellant is entitled
only an amount of Rs.89,750/- towards cost of medicine. I see no
reason to interfere with the above finding of fact by the Tribunal. The
Tribunal accepted the contentions of the 3 rd respondent that the bills
for an amount of Rs.89,750/- alone is admissible for medicine, which
include bills for physiotherapy. The Tribunal considered the bill and
thereafter, accepted the contention of the 3 rd respondent. In such
circumstance, I am not in a position to accept the contention of the
appellant that the entire amount claimed for cost of medicine is to be
allowed by this Court.
7. The other contention raised by the appellant is that the
Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.2,000/-.
According to the appellant, he was working as a Supervisor in
Anjaneya Motors, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant was only aged
28 and his claim is that he was getting Rs.6,000/- per month. The
counsel also submitted that to prove the income, PW4, the Service
Manager of the above institution was also examined. But the Tribunal
rejected the evidence of PW4 and thereafter, fixed a notional income
of Rs.2,000/-. Admittedly, the appellant passed some examinations in
Automobile Technology and he had undergone training in certain
institutions as evident by Ext.A13. According to me, even a coolie, will
get more than Rs.2,000/- in 2002. In the light of the facts and
circumstances of this case and also considering the fact that the
appellant is a qualified person as evident by Ext.A13, the notional
income can be safely fixed as Rs. 4,500/-. The counsel for the
appellant submitted that the disability of the appellant is 20% and the
Tribunal accepted only 15%. The Tribunal after considering the
evidence of the doctor and the medical certificates, concluded that
the disability is only 15%. I see no reason to interfere with that
finding of the Tribunal fixing the disability of the appellant as 15% in
the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, the fixation of
permanent disability as 15% is accepted. If that is the case, the
compensation for permanent disability is to be re-assessed based on
the monthly income fixed by this Court in the following manner :
4,500 X 12 X 17 X 15/100 = Rs. 1,37,700/-
8. From the above amount, the amount already granted is to
be deducted. Then the balance amount will be Rs.76,500/- (1,37,700-
61,200).
9. Towards pain and sufferings, the Tribunal awarded only an
amount of Rs.15,000/-. I perused the medical records produced by the
appellant. Very serious injuries are sustained by the appellant.
According to me, another Rs.10,000/ - more can be allowed towards
pain and sufferings. Moreover, for loss of earning also, the amount is
to be re-calculated based on the monthly income now fixed. Then, it is
to be re-calculated in the following manner :
4,500 X 12 = 54,000 - 24,000 = Rs.30,000/-
10. Therefore, the enhanced amount entitled by the appellant
can be summarized like this :
Sl.No. Head Amount
1 Compensation for permanent Rs.76,500/-
disability
2 Pain and sufferings Rs.10,000/-
3 Loss of earning Rs.30,000/-
Total Rs.1,16,500/-
11. The appellant is entitled interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of application till realization.
Therefore, this appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is
entitled an enhanced amount of Rs.1,16,500/- as compensation with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till
realization. The 3rd respondent is directed to pay the enhanced
compensation with interest.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
