Kerala High Court
Omana.T.K vs The Branch Manager on 22 March, 2021
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.537 OF 2010
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 83/2003 DATED 25-07-2008 OF
DISTRICT COURT & SESIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
,KALPETTA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
OMANA.T.K.
MAROLY HOUSE, KAMBALAKKAD POST,, KAMBALAKKAD,
VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.2:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, KALPANA SHOPPING
COMPLEX,, MAIN ROAD, KALPETTA.
R1 BY ADV. SMT.DEEPA GEORGE
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 22.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA.No.537 OF 2010 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
-----------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.537 of 2010
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2021
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.83/2003 on
the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta. It is a
claim petition filed by the appellant under Sec. 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act.
2. The short facts are like this :
On 3.12.2002 at about 1.45 pm, the petitioner was walking
along the Kalpetta-Mananthavady public road, and while so, a
motor cycle bearing registration No.KL12 B 3028 ridden by the
1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked down her
and thereby she sustained serious injuries. According to her, the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the
motor cycle by the 1st respondent. He was also the owner of the
vehicle and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the motor vehicle
at the time of the accident. The petitioner contended that the
respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation.
3. To substantiate the case, Exts. A1 to A9 were marked
on the side of the petitioner. The petitioner himself was
examined as PW1. After going through the evidence and the
documents, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 32,550/- as
compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, this appeal is filed.
4. Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for the
respondent.
5. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the
Tribunal fixed the disability as 5% when the certificate produced
by the petitioner shows that there is 12% permanent partial
disability and 32% occupational disability to the petitioner. But
the Tribunal after considering the entire aspects, fixed the
disability as 5%. I perused the findings. I see no reason to
interfere with the same.
6. Then the counsel submitted that the Tribunal fixed the
monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.2,100/-. According to the
counsel, even a coolie will get an amount of Rs.2,100/- in the
year 2002. There is force in the argument of the counsel for the
petitioner. The Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. The Manager,
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR
2011 SC 2951], observed that, even a coolie will get an amount of
Rs.2,500/- in the year 2004. If that principle is taken, this Court
can safely fix the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.3,500/-.
The correct multiplier as per the decision in Sarla Verma &
Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another [2010 (2) KLT
802] is '14'. Then the compensation for disability is to be re-
assessed in the following manner :
3500 x 12 x 14 x 5/100 = Rs.29,400/-
7. The amount already granted is to be deducted from
this amount. Then the balance amount will be Rs.10,500/-
(29,400-18,900).
8. Then, the counsel submitted that the amount awarded
for transportation to the hospital, extra nourishment and
bystander expenses is too low. I think there is force in the above
argument. Towards transport to the hospital, a further amount of
Rs.1,000/- can be allowed. Towards, extra nourishment, another
amount of Rs.500/- can be allowed. Admittedly, the petitioner
sustained serious injuries and he was in the hospital and
thereafter, in his house as bedridden. In such circumstances, an
amount of Rs.1000/- can be allowed towards bystander expenses.
Towards loss of earning also, only an amount of Rs.2,000/- is
allowed. Because of the serious injuries sustained to the
petitioner, he may not be able to work at least for a period of 6
months. If that is taken, the appellant is entitled an amount of
Rs.21,000/- (6 x 3,500/-). An amount of Rs.2,000/- is already
granted in this head and that is to be deducted. Then, the
amount entitled by the appellant towards loss of earning is Rs.
19,000/- (21,000-2,000). Then, the counsel submitted that
towards pain and suffering, only Rs.5,000/- is awarded. The
appellant is entitled another amount of Rs.10,000/- more in this
head. The counsel also submitted that no amount is awarded for
loss of amenities. The appellant is entitled another amount of
Rs.15,000/- in that head also. In the light of the above discussion,
the appellant is entitled the enhanced compensation in the
following manner :
Sl.No. Head Amount
1 Compensation for disability Rs.10,500/-
2 Loss of amenities Rs.15,000/-
3 Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/-
4 Bystander expense Rs.1,000/-
5 Extra nourishment Rs.500/-
6 Transport to hospital Rs.1,000/-
7 Loss of earning Rs.19,000/-
Total Rs.57,000/-
9. The appellant is not entitled interest for the enhanced
compensation for a period of 210 days in the light of the order
dated 24.6.2019 in CM Appln. No.665/2010.
Therefore, the appeal is allowed in part.
1) The impugned award is modified.
2) The appellant is entitled an enhanced amount of
Rs.57,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the
date of application till realization.
3) The appellant is entitled interest at the rate of 8% per
annum for the compensation awarded by the Tribunal also instead
of 6%.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
