Reliance General Insurance Co. ... vs Miss. Shibina
2021 Latest Caselaw 22398 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
 TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                       MACA NO. 1120 OF 2014
 AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 734/2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
                        TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:

            RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
            KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY IT DEPUTY MANAGER,
            REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM
            BY ADVS.
            SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
            SMT.K.S.SANTHI


RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:

            MISS. SHIBINA
            D/O RAVINDRAN, STUDENT, KUNNUMMAL HOUSE,
            P.O.PARAPRAM, VIA.THALASSERY,
            REP. BY HER FATHER RAVINDRAN, KUNNUMMAL HOUSE,
            PO PARAPRAM, VIA.THALASSERY,
            PIN - 691 001.(AS SHE IS UNCONSCIOUS FROM THE DAY
            OF ACCIDENT ONWARDS)
            BY ADVS.
            SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH
            SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH
            SRI.B.S.SYAMANTHAK


     THIS     MOTOR    ACCIDENT    CLAIMS     APPEAL    HAVING    BEEN
FINALLY   HEARD   ON   13.10.2021,      THE   COURT    ON   09.11.2021
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 M.A.C.A. No. 1120 of 2014
                                     2




                               T.R.RAVI, J.
                   --------------------------------------
                       M.A.C.A. No. 1120 of 2014
              -----------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 9th day of November, 2021

                               JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred at the instance of the insurer,

aggrieved by the quantum of the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal. The claimant who was a student of Computer Engineering

at the Government Engineering College, Mananthavady while

returning from college, was hit down by a stage carriage bus

insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The accident

occurred on 29.02.2008. The claimant suffered head injury and

remained unconscious from the date of the accident. A claim was

preferred before the Tribunal and the Tribunal awarded a sum of

₹39,29,200/- as against the claim of ₹50,00,000/-. According to

the appellant, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very

excessive and hence this appeal.

2. Heard Smt.K.S.Santhi, learned counsel for the appellant

and Smt.Bindumol Joseph, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the

amounts awarded under the head pain and suffering, loss of

amenities, bystanders expenses, fuel charges, drivers charges and M.A.C.A. No. 1120 of 2014

the disability compensation are all excessive. I do not find any

reason to accept the contention raised by the appellant.

Admittedly, the respondent become completely bedridden after the

accident and is a paraplegic. She needs a bystander throughout

her life. Despite the fact that the respondent is in such a condition,

the Tribunal had granted disability compensation taking into

account only 80% as the disability. The manner in which the

Tribunal has arrived at the compensation towards expenditure for

attendant in the future, fuel charges, driver's charges etc. are all on

the basis of necessity for such expenses for 3 years, though the

fact remains that the claimant needs an attender for life. I find that

there is no reason why the appellant should feel aggrieved by the

compensation awarded. In my opinion if at all somebody should be

aggrieved it should be the claimant.

No grounds are made out in the appeal and the appeal is

dismissed.

Sd/-

T.R. RAVI, JUDGE

Pn