Kerala High Court
Dakshayani vs Nisamusheen V.P on 22 March, 2021
MACA.No.2108 OF 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1943
MACA.No.2108 OF 2018(A)
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 96/2015 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL- III, MANJERI
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
DAKSHAYANI
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O.RAJAN, VELLILA HOUSE,AMARAMBALAM, KARA
POST,NILAMBUR TALUK, WANDOOR AMSOM,MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 679 339.
BY ADV. SHRI.K.VIDYASAGAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 NISAMUSHEEN V.P.
AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.HAMZA, VATTAPARAMBAN
HOUSE,MANHAPETTY, KOORIPOYIL, KOORAD
POST,NILAMBUR TALUK, KOORAD AMSOM,MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT - 679 339.
2 MOHAMMED
AGED 37 YEARS,VATTAPARAMBAN HOUSE, KOORAD
POST,KALIKAVU, NILAMBUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT - 676 525.
3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
AM BUILDING, HOSPITAL ROAD,
CHETTIYANGADI - 676 329.
R3 BY ADV. K.SHERIN MOHAN
R3 BY ADV. AGINOV MATHAPPAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 22-03-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
MACA.No.2108 OF 2018
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 22nd day of March 2021
The appellant was the petitioner in O.P. (MV)
No.96/2015 on the file of the Additional Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Manjeri The respondents in the
appeal were the respondents in the claim petition.
2. The appellant had filed the claim petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
claiming compensation on account of the accident that
took place on 20.5.2014. It was her case that, while
she was walking along the way side of the Kalikav -
Wandoor Pubic Road, a Goods Autorickshaw bearing
Reg. No.KL10/AL- 1309 (offending vehicle) driven by
the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit
the appellant. She sustained serious injuries.
The offending vehicle was owned by the 2 nd respondent
and insured with the 3rd respondent. She was a coolie
MACA.No.2108 OF 2018
worker and earning a monthly income of Rs.12,000/-.
The respondents 1 to 3 were jointly and severally liable
to pay her compensation, which she quantified at
Rs.4,00,000/-
3. The respondents 1 and 2 did not contest the
proceedings and were set ex parte.
4. The 3rd respondent - Insurance Company -
filed a written statement, inter alia, admitting that the
offending vehicle was insured with it. However, it was
contended that the compensation claimed in the claim
petition was excessive and exorbitant.
5. The petitioner marked Exts.A1 to A7 in
evidence. Ext.C1 Report of the Medical Board was
marked as a Court Exhibit.
6. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings
and materials on record, by the impugned award
allowed the claim petition in part, by directing the 3 rd
respondent to pay the appellant an amount of
Rs.2,21,367/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per
MACA.No.2108 OF 2018
annum from the date of filing of the petition till the
date of realisation with proportionate costs.
7. Dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant
is in appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd
respondent.
9. Although the appellant had claimed that she
was a coolie worker and earning a monthly income of
Rs.12,000/-, The Tribunal fixed the notinal income of
the petitioner at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ramachanrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and in Syed Sadiq and
others v. Divisional Manager, United India
Insurance Co.Ltd [(2014) 2 SCC 735] has fixed the
notional income of a coolie worker at Rs.4,500/- per
month in the year, 2004 and that of a vegetable
MACA.No.2108 OF 2018
vendor at the rate of Rs.6,500/- per month in the year
2008.
11. Following by the parameters laid down in the
afore-cited precedents, I am of the considered opinion
that the appellant's notional income can safely be fixed
at Rs.9,500/- per month.
12. Exts.A4(a) to A4(c) discharge summary shows
that the petitioner was hospitalised for a period of 23
days . Ext.C1 medical report shows that the petitioner
has suffered a permanent disability assessed at 2%.
13. In view of the re-fixation of the notional
income of the petitioner, I hold that the petitioner is
entitled for enhancement of compensation under the
head 'loss of earnings' which has to be re-fixed at
47,500/- instead of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal. Similarly, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation under the head 'loss due to disability'
at Rs.23,940/- instead of Rs.8400/- awarded by the
MACA.No.2108 OF 2018
Tribunal.
14. With respect to the other heads of
compensation, namely, Transport to hospital, Damage
to clothing, Extra nourishment, Medical expenses and
Pain and suffering, I find that the Tribunal has
awarded reasonable and just compensation.
15. On an overall re-appreciation of the
pleadings, materials on record and the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited
decisions, I am of the considered opinion that the
appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation
as modified and re-calculated above, and given in the
table below for easy reference.
MACA.No.2108 OF 2018
SI. Head of claim Amount Amounts
No awarded by modified
the Tribunal (in and
rupees) recalculate
d by this
Court
1 Loss of earning 25,000 47,500
2 Transport to hospital 2,500 2,500
3 Extra nourishment 1,500 1,500
4 Damage to clothing and 1,000 1,000
articles
5 Others (Medical Bills & 1,47,967 1,47,967
Bystander's expenses)
6 Compensation for pain and 25,000 25,000
suffering
7 Compensation for the 8,400 23,940
continuing or permanent
disability
8 Compensation for loss of 10,000 10,000
earning power and loss of
amenities
9. Total 2,21,367 2,59,407
In the result, the appeal is allowed, in part, by
enhancing the compensation by a further amount of
Rs.38,040/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum
on the enhanced compensation from the date of
petition till the date of realisation with proportionate
costs. The 3rd respondent shall deposit the additional
compensation awarded in this appeal before the
Tribunal with interest and proportionate costs, within
MACA.No.2108 OF 2018
a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of the judgment. The Tribunal shall
disburse the additional compensation to the appellant,
in accordance with law.
ma/23.3.2020 Sd/-C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
/True copy/
