Deepu Raj.P.S. vs Jimmy K.J.
2021 Latest Caselaw 9454 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

     MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1943

                      MACA.No.1356 OF 2011(C)

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 181/2005 DATED 30-04-2010 OF ADDITIONAL
 DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , NORTH PARAVUR


APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:

             DEEPU RAJ.P.S., S/O.SOMANATHAN,
             AGED 31 YEARS, KONNOTHU VEETTIL,, EDAYAR P.O.,
             KADUNGALLUR VILLAGE,, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.B.R.MURALEEDHARAN
             SRI.N.R.RAJESH

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

      1      JIMMY K.J., S/O.JOCKEY, AGED 28 YEARS,
             KALLARAKKAL VEETIL, MUPPATHADAM,, KADUNGALLUR
             VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

      2      THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD
             ALUVA BRANCH.

             R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN THIRUVALLA
             R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)

OTHER PRESENT:

             SMT.K.S.SANTHI, SC

     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22-03-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA.No.1356 OF 2011(C)

                                2




                    P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                --------------------------------
                  M.A.C.A.No.1356 of 2011
                 -------------------------------
           Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2021


                          JUDGMENT

The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No. 181/

2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

North Paravur. It is a claim petition filed under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. The short facts are like this: On 7.9.2004, the

petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider of a scooter bearing

registration No.7 A 4938 along the Kalamassery-Pathalam

through Eloor Puthiyaroad. When the vehicle reached near

Pathalam junction, an autorikshaw bearing registration No.

KL 7 V 7711 came from the opposite side negligently ridden

by the first respondent hit the scooter and thereby the

petitioner was thrown on the road and sustained injuries. It MACA.No.1356 OF 2011(C)

is alleged that the accident occurred because of the rash

and negligent driving of the autorikshaw by the first

respondent and hence the claim petition is filed for getting

compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.

3. To substantiate the case, Exts. A1 to A9 were

produced. One witness was examined on the side of the

appellant as PW1. After going through the evidence and

documents, the Tribunal found that the appellant is entitled

compensation of Rs.48,000/- with interest at the rate of 7%

per annum from the date of application till realisation.

Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation this appeal is

filed.

4. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the learned

standing counsel for the second respondent.

5. The counsel for the appellant submitted that for

transport to hospital, only an amount of Rs.1,000/- is

granted by the Tribunal and the petitioner travelled to the

hospital on several occasions in connection with the injuries MACA.No.1356 OF 2011(C)

sustained to him. I think another amount of Rs.1,000/- also

can be granted on this head. No amount is awarded by the

Tribunal towards damage to clothing. I think an amount of

Rs.500/- can be granted on this head. The counsel for the

appellant submitted that towards treatment expenses,

Ext.A9 is discarded. I am not interfering with that finding of

the Tribunal because Ext.A9 is not proved in accordance to

law. As far as pain and suffering is concerned, the Tribunal

awarded Rs.12,000/-. Admittedly, the appellant sustained

very serious injuries in the accident. Therefore, I think

another amount of Rs.8,000/- can be allowed for pain and

sufferings.

6. For deciding disability, the notional income of the

appellant is fixed as Rs.2,000/-. According to the appellant,

he was working as a Creative Artist in an advertisement

company. The accident happened in 2004. I think in the

light of the judgment of the Apex Court in

Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram MACA.No.1356 OF 2011(C)

Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (2011(13) SCC 236)

the notional income of the appellant can be re-fixed as

Rs.4,500/- because in the above judgment, the Apex Court

fixed the income of a coolie as Rs.4,500/- in the year 2004.

The multiplier used is 5 by the Tribunal. Both sides

submitted that the correct multiplier is 9. If that is the case,

the disability can be re-assessed in the following manner.

Rs.4,500/-x12x9x17/100=Rs.82,620/-. From the above

amount, the amount already granted is to be deducted.

Then the balance amount will be Rs.82,620/--Rs.20,400/-=

Rs.62,220/-.

7. As far as loss of amenities concerned, the Tribunal

awarded only an amount of Rs.3,000/-. The appellant is

entitled another amount of Rs.7,000/- on this head. Then

the enhanced compensation entitled by the appellant can be

summarised like this:

1. Transport to hospital - Rs.1,000/-.

  2. Damage to clothing      -        Rs.500/-
 MACA.No.1356 OF 2011(C)



     3. Pain and sufferings         -             Rs.8,000/-

     4. Compensation for disability -              Rs. 62,220/-.

     5. Loss of amenities                   -     Rs.7,000/-.

       Total                                -     Rs.78,720/-.

The appellant is entitled interest at the rate of 7% per

annum from the date of petition till realisation. Therefore,

the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award

is modified. The appellant is entitled an enhanced

compensation of Rs. 78,720/- with interest at the rate of

7% p.a. from the date of application till realisation. The

second respondent is directed to pay the enhanced

compensation with interest.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE

al/-