Prasanna Babu @ Babu vs Aliarkutty
2021 Latest Caselaw 22790 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
    SATURDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 29TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                           MACA NO. 335 OF 2014
   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OPMV 952/2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
                        TRIBUNAL PALA, KOTTAYAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

           PRASANNA BABU @ BABU
           S/O.VASU ACHARI, THEKKEKUNNUVELIL HOUSE, RAMAKKALMEDU
           KARA, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

           BY ADVS.
                SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL)
                SRI.MANU TOM



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

     1     ALIARKUTTY @ GEEYASH
           S/O.ABDUL SALAM, EDATHARA HOUSE, BALANPILLA CITY BHAGOM,
           RAMAKKALMEDU KARA-685552

     2     ALIYARKUTTY
           S/O.ABDUL SALAM, 205 (4/1.50), KARUNAPURAM P.O.,
           IDUKKI DISTRICT.

     3     THE MANAGER
           THE CHOLAMANDALAM M.S.GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., HEAD
           OFFICE, DARE HOUSE, IIND FLOOR, N.S.C.BOSE ROAD,
           CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-600001.

           BY ADVS.
                 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
                 SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.


     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA 335/2014                        2


                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.952/2010 has filed this appeal

aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. The parties in this appeal are referred

to as per the status in the claim petition. While the petitioner was

travelling in an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-7/AX-4757 from

Balanpilla City to Kompumukku, it turned upside down and she fell

down and sustained injuries. The petitioner contended that the accident

happened due to the negligent driving of the autorickshaw by the first

respondent. The second respondent is the owner of the said vehicle and

the third respondent is its insurer. The petitioner claimed an amount of

Rs.3,66,000/- which was limited to Rs.2,50,000/-.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

The third respondent insurance company entered appearance and filed

written statement admitting that the vehicle was covered by a valid

policy of insurance as on the date of the accident; however, contended

that there was no valid fitness certificate for the vehicle at the time of

the accident. They also contended that the amount of compensation

claimed is excessive.

3. The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the

negligent driving of the autorickshaw by the first respondent and that

the second respondent has not produced the fitness certificate of the

said vehicle and there is violation of policy conditions. The insurance

company was directed to pay the amount of compensation reserving the

right to recover it from the second respondent, the owner of the vehicle.

4. The Tribunal awarded the following compensation under

various heads:-

   Part I                       Amount       Amount awarded
                                claimed
                                            (in Rs.)
                                (in Rs.)



   Loss of earnings             70,000/-     24,000/-(6000x4 months)



   Transport to Hospital       10,000/-     4,000/-

   Extra-nourishment           5,000/-      1000/-

   Damages to clothing         1,000/-      Not entitled

   Treatment Expenses          20,000/-     3,000/-

   Bystander Expenses          10,000/-     1,800/- (200x12 days)

   Pain and suffering          50,000/-     20,000/-

   Permanent Disability        1,50,000/-   65,520/-
                                            (6,000x12x13x7/100)

   Loss of amenities           50,000       Not entitled

                Total          3,66,000/-   1,19,320/-

        claim is limited to    2,50,000/-

5. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the petitioner as

Rs.6,000/-. The petitioner is a carpenter. Going by the decision of the

Apex Court reported in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal

Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [2011 (13) SCC

236: AIR 2011 SC 2951], the notional/monthly income of the

petitioner who is a manual labourer has to be taken as Rs.7,500/-.

Accordingly, the monthly income of the appellant/petitioner is re-fixed

as Rs.7,500/-. Taking the monthly income as Rs.7,500/-, the appellant

will be entitled for an amount of Rs.30,000/- (7500x4 months) under

the head loss of earnings. Thus, an additional amount of Rs.6,000/-

(30,000-24,000) is granted under the said head. The Medical Board has

fixed the disability of the petitioner as 18.15% as per Ext.X1 certificate

produced before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has taken the

disability only as 7% and awarded an amount of Rs.65,520/- under the

head permanent disability. Taking the disability as 18.15%, I re-fix the

amount of compensation under the said head as Rs.2,12,355/-

(7500x12x13x18.15/100) and the appellant is entitled to get an

additional sum of Rs.1,46,835/-.

6. Though the appellant claimed an amount of Rs.50,000/- for loss

of amenities in life, no amount is awarded by the Tribunal under this

head. Going by the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant, I

am of the view that an amount of Rs.10,000/- will be a reasonable

compensation to be awarded under this head. It is awarded.

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is

granted an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,62,835/- with interest @

9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation, with

proportionate costs, which is fixed as Rs.3,000/-. The third respondent

insurance company shall deposit the said amount along with interest

and the costs as fixed above before the Tribunal within a period of two

months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The

insurance company can recover the amount from the second

respondent, as found by the Tribunal.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

spc/