Kuruvila Thomas vs The Royal Sundaram Alliance ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 22223 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
    FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                         MACA NO. 1290 OF 2015
 AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 906/2012 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
                    CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - II, KOTTAYAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

          KURUVILA THOMAS
          AGED 53 YEARS
          S/O THOMAS KURUVILLA,
          KAVITHAZHE HOUSE,NEELAMEROOR PO,
          KOTTAYAM DIST
          BY ADVS.
          SRI.P.M.JOSHI
          SMT.SIJI K.PAUL


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.2:

             THE ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD
             REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM , KOCHI-11
          BY ADVS.
          SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
          SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)


     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 05.10.2021, THE COURT ON 05.11.2021 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 MACA 1290 OF 2015                 2



                            T.R. RAVI, J.
             --------------------------------------------
                     M.A.C.A. No.1290 of 2015
              --------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 5th day of November, 2021

                             JUDGMENT

On 12.2.2012, the car that was being driven by the appellant

was hit by another car which came in the opposite direction. The

accident was found to be on account of rash and negligent driving by

the driver of the offending car. The appellant sustained contusion over

face and (L) arm, pain, tenderness and oedema over root of nose,

lacerated wound over maxilla area and pain and swelling over (L) arm

and big toe. It is claimed that he was taken to the Medical College

Hospital, Kottayam and that he had to undergo treatment as an

inpatient. However, Exts.A3 and A4 medical records produced show

that the appellant was treated only as an out-patient on 12.2.2012.

The appellant preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal. The

Tribunal awarded a compensation of ₹86,305/- towards compensation

for the personal injuries as well as for the damage to the car.

Aggrieved by the award, the appellant has preferred this appeal

seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded.

2. Heard Sri P.M.Joshi on behalf of the appellant and Sri

Mathew Jacob, Senior Advocate instructed by Sri Jacob Mathew, on

behalf of the Insurance Company.

3. The accident happened on 12.2.2012. The counsel for the

appellant contended that the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the

notional income of the appellant as ₹5,000/- instead of ₹8,000/-,

which was claimed. It is also claimed that the compensation awarded

by the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings is also very less. Another

contention is that having regard to the gravity of the injuries

sustained, the compensation towards loss of amenities should have

been more than ₹5,000/-, which was awarded. The Senior Counsel

appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellant suffered

only minor injuries and what has been granted by the Tribunal as

compensation is just and fair.

4. The accident happened on 12.2.2012. Having regard to

the reasoning in the dictum laid down in Ramachandrappa v.

Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd., reported

in [AIR 2011 SC 2951], the Tribunal ought to have adopted the

monthly income of the appellant as ₹8,000/-. As noted by the

Tribunal, there is nothing in evidence to show that the appellant was

treated as an in-patient. Ext.A4 would show that it is issued on

28.3.2012. It would appear that the treatment of the appellant was

not over with 12.2.2012 alone and he had to go the hospital

thereafter also. I am hence of the opinion that the appellant should

be awarded compensation for loss of earnings for a period of 3

months instead of 2 months. Considering the nature of the injuries, I

find that the amount awarded towards pain and suffering is

reasonable. However, I am of the considered view that the appellant

should be awarded a sum of ₹5,000/- more towards loss of

amenities. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to an additional

compensation of ₹14,000/- towards loss of earnings and ₹5,000/-

towards loss of amenities.

5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is

awarded an additional compensation of ₹19,000/- (Rupees

Nineteen Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 9% per

annum from 30.7.2012 till date of realisation, with proportionate

costs. The respondent insurer shall deposit the additional

compensation granted in this appeal along with the interest and

proportionate costs, before the Tribunal within two months from the

date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after deducting

any amount to which the appellant is liable towards balance court fee

and legal benefit fund. The disbursement of the compensation to the

appellant shall be in accordance with law.

Sd/-

T.R. RAVI JUDGE

dsn