Jose T.L vs Saypputty
2021 Latest Caselaw 8708 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 8708 Ker
Judgement Date : 16 March, 2021

Kerala High Court

Jose T.L vs Saypputty 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.924 OF 2011(C)

 AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 2373/2004 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR EC ACT
           CASES &MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,TSR


APPELLANT:

               JOSE T.L.
               THEKKANATH HOUSE,
               KIZHUPPILLIKARA,
               THRISSUR.

               BY ADV. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM

RESPONDENTS:

      1        SAYPPUTTY
               PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE,
               KIZHUPPILLIKARA,
               THRISSUR, PIN-680 512.

      2        MAJEED SO.SAITHUMUHAMMED
               PADAVALAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
               KALLUR,
               THRISSUR, PIN-680 513.

      3        UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
               BRANCH OFFICE,
               CHALAKKUDY, PIN-680 520.

               R1 BY ADV. SMT.R.REMA

OTHER PRESENT:

               SMT.R.REMA SC, FOR R3

     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09-03-2021, THE COURT ON 16-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA.No.924 OF 2011(C)

                                2




                 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
              ===================
                  MACA No.924 OF 2011
              ===================
          Dated this the 16th day of March 2021


                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P (MV)

No.2373/2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Thrissur. It was a claim petition filed under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Hereinafter

the parties are mentioned in accordance to their rank

before the Tribunal).

2. The short facts are like this:-

On 22.08.2004 at about 11.30 a.m., while the

petitioner was riding a Motor Cycle bearing Registration

No. KL-8M-3928 through Karanchira Public road, an

Autorickshaw bearing Registration No. KL-8/D-2320 hit

him down at Kizhupillikkara due to the rash and negligent

driving by its driver, and in the impact caused serious MACA.No.924 OF 2011(C)

injuries to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of

the auto rickshaw by the 1st respondent. 2nd respondent is

the owner of the vehicle and it was insured by him with

the 3rd respondent. The petitioner claims an amount of

Rs. 5,000/- compensation for injury sustained.

3. To substantiate the case, Exts.A1 to A15 were

marked on the side of the petitioner. After going through

the evidence and documents, the Tribunal found that, the

appellant is entitled an amount of Rs. 2,75,000/- with

interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing the petition till

its realisation. Aggrieved by the quantum of

compensation, this appeal is filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that, the tribunal fixed the monthly income as Rs.2,500/-.

According to the learned counsel, the appellant was

running a stationery shop and he was getting Rs.4,500/- MACA.No.924 OF 2011(C)

per month. There is some force in the argument of the

learned counsel for the appellant. In Ramachandrappa

v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram [2011(13) SCC

236], the Apex Court fixed an amount of Rs.4500/- as

monthly income to a coolie in the year 2004. In this case

also the accident happened in 2004. In such situation, the

monthly income of the appellant can be safely fixed as

Rs.4,500/-. Consequently, the loss of earning is to be re

assessed based on the monthly income now fixed. It will

be in the following manner;

Rs.4,500 X 12 = Rs.54,000/-

6. An amount of Rs. 30,000/- is already given by

the tribunal and that is to be deducted from the above

amount. Then the enhanced amount entitled by the

appellant is for loss of earning is Rs.24,000/-.

Consequently, the compensation for disability is also to be

reassessed based on the monthly income now fixed. It will

be in the following manner;

Rs.4,500 X 12 X 16 X 12/100 = Rs.1,03,680/- MACA.No.924 OF 2011(C)

7. From the above amount, the amount already

granted is to be deducted. Then the enhanced amount

entitled to the appellant will be Rs. 1,03,680-57,600 =

Rs.46,080/-. No amount is ordered by the tribunal for

loss of amenity. I think an amount of Rs. 15,000/- can

be allowed.

8. In the light of the above findings, the enhanced

compensation entitled by the appellant can be

summarized like this:

         1. Loss of earnings            -       Rs.24,000/-
         2. Compensation for disability-        Rs.46,080/-
         3. Loss of amenity             -       Rs.15,000/-
                                           ------------------
                            Total            Rs.85,080/-
                                             == ========

9. The appellant is entitled interest @ 8% per

annum. But I make it clear that, the appellant is not

entitled interest for a period of 290 days, because the

appeal is filed with a delay of 290 days.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The

impugned award is modified to the effect that the MACA.No.924 OF 2011(C)

appellant is entitled an enhanced compensation of

Rs.85,080/- with interest @ 8% p.a from the date of filing

the petition till its realisation. I make it clear that, the

appellants are not entitled interest for a period of 290

days. The 3rd respondent is directed to pay the enhanced

compensation with interest.