Kerala High Court
Rajesh K vs Tata Aig General Insurance ... on 20 November, 2021
M.A.C.A.No.4083/17 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
SATURDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 29TH KARTHIKA,
1943
MACA NO. 4083 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 449/2014 OF DISTRICT
COURT & SESSIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL ,KASARAGOD, KASARGOD
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
RAJESH K
AGED 41 YEARS,
S/O.NARAYANAN K.V, H/O. RAJALAKSHMI K,
KALOOT VEEDU, KOVVAL STORE P.O,
KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.M.V.AMARESAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.2:
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
A-501,5TH FLOOR, BUILDING NO.4INFINITY PARK,
DINDOSH MALAD,(E) MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA PIN 400 097.
BY ADV SRI.R.AJITH KUMAR (128/84)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.4083/17 2
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.(MV).No.449/2014 on
the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod. The
aforesaid claim petition was filed by him seeking compensation
for the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident occurred on
05.04.2014. He was aged 38 years and a driver by profession
with a monthly income of Rs.18,000/-. According to him he
sustained very serious injuries, which affected his avocation. In
such circumstances, he sought for a compensation of
Rs.8,00,000/- for the same.
2. The insurance company alone contested the claim
petition by filing a written statement. Even though they disputed
negligence and quantum of compensation, coverage of policy in
respect of the vehicle, was admitted.
3. The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A8
from the side of the appellant. No evidence was adduced from
the side of the respondents. After the trial, the Tribunal passed
an award allowing the appellant to realize an amount of
Rs.2,24,700/- from the respondents along with interest at the rate
of 9% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation, this appeal is filed.
4. Heard Sri.Aravind S., learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri.R.Ajith Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent
insurance company. The main dispute raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant is with regard to the quantum of
compensation. According to him, the amount awarded under the
heads of loss of earning, pain and suffering and loss of amenities
are on lower side. It was also pointed out that the impact of the
injuries in his career was also not taken care of by the Tribunal.
5. The learned counsel for the insurance company would
seriously oppose the said contention by pointing out that
reasonable amounts have been awarded by the Tribunal and no
interference is warranted.
6. When the facts and circumstances of this case is
considered, it is seen that the Tribunal has fixed the monthly
income of the injured as Rs.6,000/-. The appellant is claimed to
be a driver and the accident occurred in the year 2014.
Whatever be the nature of avocation, fixing an amount of
Rs.6,000/- pertaining to an accident occurred in the year 2014 is
extremely on the lower side. Going by the principles laid down
by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v.
Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd
[(2011) 13 SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735], the
amount which can be reasonably fixed as monthly income for an
accident occurred in the year 2014 can be Rs.9,500/-. This court
is consistently determining the monthly income, in the light of the
above judgments, by fixing the base monthly income as Rs 4,500/-
in respect of an accident occurred in the year, 2004 and by
adding Rs 500/- each per year, in respect of the accidents
occurred in the subsequent years. Hence, I fix Rs.9,500/- as the
monthly income in this case. Consequent to the revision of
monthly income the appellant will be entitled for an additional
amount under the head of loss of earning. It is seen that the
Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.18,000/- under this head,
which was calculated at the rate of Rs 6,000/- for three months.
The appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for 16 days and
the injuries are also serious. The profession which he has
engaged in, requires physical fitness. Certainly the injuries
would have prevented him from attending his regular
employment for a period of at least three months. In such
circumstances, I am of the view that loss of earning must be
calculated at least for a period of four months. As I have already
fixed the monthly income as Rs.9,500/-, the compensation payable
under this head would come to Rs.38,000/-. The Tribunal has
already awarded an amount of Rs.18,000/- and additional amount
of Rs.20,000/- is reasonable for the appellant.
7. Other heads which requires re-consideration is
compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenities. The
amount awarded under the head of pain and suffering is just
Rs.10,000/-, which is very meager. The person who has
undergone 16 days hospitalization in the year 2014 deserves
more amount of compensation under this head. The nature of
injuries sustained by the appellant in this case also makes the
enhancement of compensation under this head necessary. I am of
the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, an
additional amount of Rs.25,000/- can be granted under this head.
Similarly, under the head loss of amenities, the amount awarded
is Rs.25,000/-. In my view a further amount of Rs.20,000/- would
do justice to the appellant.
Thus the total additional amount of compensation receivable
by the appellant is fixed as Rs.65,000/- [20000+25000+20000]
[Rupees sixty five thousand only] and the respondent insurance
company is directed to deposit the said amount along with
interest and proportionate costs as ordered by the Tribunal,
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
DG/22.11.21
