Yesudasan @ Lalu vs Reliance General Insurance
2021 Latest Caselaw 9240 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

     FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                          MACA.No.2206 OF 2012

   AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 101/2009 DATED 25-04-2012 OF MOTOR
                 ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM


APPELLANT:

               YESUDASAN @ LALU
               AGED 34 YEARS
               S/O DANIEL,
               KOCHUVEETTILTHARAYIL,
               EDAVANASSERY,
               MYNAGAPALLY PO,
               KOLLAM

               BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P

RESPONDENT:

               RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695014


               R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN THIRUVALLA

OTHER PRESENT:

               SMT.K.S.SANTHI FOR RESPONDENT

     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA.No.2206 OF 2012
                                2




                 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
              ===================
                 MACA No.2206 OF 2012
              ===================
          Dated this the 19th day of March 2021


                        JUDGMENT

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

No.101/2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Kollam. 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 09.09.2008 at 7.50 p.m., the petitioner was

traveling in a scooter bearing registration No. KL-2/V

5069 through Anjilimood Bharanikkavu Public road and

when the scooter reached in front of Saffire Hospital at

Sasthamcotta, a car bearing Registration No. KL-23/A 439

driven by the 2nd respondent came in a rash and MACA.No.2206 OF 2012

negligent manner and hit on the scooter of the petitioner.

As a result of the accident, the petitioner fell down and

sustained very serious injuries. According to the

petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of

2nd respondent. Respondent No.1 is the owner and

respondent No.3 is the insurer of the vehicle. According

to the petitioner, the respondents are jointly and severally

liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. According to

the petitioner, the petitioner was only aged 34 years at

the time of accident and he was a PWD contractor having

a monthly income of Rs.23,000/-.

3. To substantiate the case, Exts.A1 to A14 were

marked on the side of the petitioner. The petitioner

himself was examined as PW1. After going through the

evidence and documents, the Tribunal awarded a total

compensation Rs.98,500/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a.

from the date of application till 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 respondent. MACA.No.2206 OF 2012

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that, the monthly income fixed by the tribunal is too low.

The learned counsel submitted that, he produced Ext.

A11 which will show that the petitioner was getting

Rs.10,000/- per month. Therefore, the learned counsel

for the petitioner submitted that, the same ought to have

been taken by the tribunal to fixed the monthly income.

But the tribunal rejected Ext. A11, mainly because the

same is not proved by examining the competent person.

But it is a fact that the accident in this case happened in

the year 2008. 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 the accident

happened in 2008. In such situation, the monthly income

of the appellant can be safely fixed as Rs.6,500/-.

Consequently, the compensation for disability is to be re-

assessed based on the monthly income now fixed. It will

be in the following manner;

Rs.6,500 X 12 X 16 X 2/100 = Rs.24,960/- MACA.No.2206 OF 2012

6. From the above amount, the compensation

already given by the tribunal in this head is to be

deducted. Then the enhanced amount entitled to the

appellant will be Rs.24,960-23,040 = Rs.1,920/-. No

amount is ordered by the tribunal for loss of amenity. I

think an amount of Rs.15,000/- can be allowed.

Similarly towards the pain and suffering only Rs.15,000/-

is granted by the tribunal. I think the appellant is entitled

another Rs.5,000/- in that head also.

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

compensation entitled by the appellant can be

summarized like this:

               Head                             Amount
        Compensation for disability          Rs.1,920/-
        Loss of amenity                      Rs.15,000/-
        Pain and sufferings                  Rs.5,000/-


                        Total                Rs.21,920/-

8. The appellant is entitled interest @ 8% per

annum from the date of application till realisation.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The MACA.No.2206 OF 2012

impugned award is modified to the effect that the

appellant is entitled an enhanced compensation of

Rs.21,920/- with interest @ 8% p.a from the date of

application till realisation. The respondent is directed to

pay the enhanced compensation with interest.

(Sd/-) P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE LU