Sujith vs Tata Aig General Insurance ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 22792 Ker

M.A.C.A.No.2132/2019                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. 2132 OF 2019
    AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 1484/2015 OF MOTOR
       ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

            SUJITH,
            AGED 23 YEARS,
            S/O.SURESH, ALUMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
            KIDANGOOR, ANGAMALY.

           BY ADV A.N.SANTHOSH



RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:

            TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
            BRANCH OFFICE, VELLOORE P.O, TAMIL NADU-632 004.

           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.2132/2019                  2



                            JUDGMENT

The appellant is the petitioner in O.P(MV).No.1484 of 2015

on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor.

The aforesaid claim petition was filed by him seeking

compensation for the injuries sustained to him in a motor

accident occurred on 08.07.2015. The accident occurred when

the motor cycle ridden by the petitioner was hit by a lorry driven

by the 2nd respondent in the claim petition in a rash and

negligent manner. The aforesaid vehicle was owned by the 1 st

respondent and was insured with the 3 rd respondent in the claim

petition. The total compensation claimed was Rs.25,00,000/-.

2. The insurance company alone contested the matter by

filing a written statement. They disputed the negligence on the

part of the driver of the lorry and quantum of compensation as

well. However, they admitted the coverage of policy.

3. The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A10

and oral evidence of PW1. The disability certificate issued by the

Medical Board was produced as Ext.C1, wherein percentage of

disability of the appellant was certified as 52%. After evaluating

the materials available on record, the Tribunal held that the

accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver

of the lorry and accordingly, the respondent insurance company

was held responsible to pay the compensation. The quantum of

compensation was fixed as Rs.15,92,035/-. Being dissatisfied

with the said amount this appeal is filed.

4. Heard Sri.A.N.Santhosh, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri.R.Ajith Kumar, learned counsel for the

insurance company.

5. The main contention put forward by the learned

counsel for the appellant is regarding the amount awarded under

the head of permanent disability. It was pointed out that even

though the monthly income of Rs.12,000/- was claimed, the

Tribunal has taken only Rs.8,000/-, which is extremely on lower

side. The learned counsel for the insurance company opposes

the said contention and points out that a substantial amount has

already been awarded under the said head and no interference is

warranted in such circumstances.

6. When considering the fact that the accident occurred

in the year 2015 and also the fact that the appellant was a tile

worker, I am of the view that the amount of Rs.8,000/- taken as

monthly income is on lower side. In Ramachandrappa v.

Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd

[(2011) 13 SCC 236], the Honourable Supreme Court was

pleased to fix Rs.4,500/- as the monthly income in respect of a

coolie for an accident occurred in the year 2004. In Syed Sadiq

v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company

[(2014) 2 SCC 735] the Honourable Supreme Court has fixed

the monthly income of a vegetable vendor as Rs.6,500/- in

respect of an accident occurred in the year 2008. By following

the principles laid down in the said judgment, this Court is

consistently fixing the monthly income by fixing the base income

as Rs.4,500/- in the year 2004 and adding Rs.500/- each per year

for subsequent years. When such method of computation is

adopted, the proper monthly income can be taken in this case is

Rs.10,000/-, as the accident occurred in the year 2015. In the

facts and circumstances of the case, said amount appears to be

reasonable and I fix the said amount as monthly income. While

re-computing the compensation for permanent disability with the

above revised monthly income and keeping the other criteria

adopted by the Tribunal intact, the amount comes to

Rs.15,72,480/- [10000+(40%)*12*18*52%]. The Tribunal has

already awarded an amount of Rs.12,57,984/- (Rupees twelve

lakhs fifty seven thousand nine hundred and eighty four only).

Thus the balance amount comes to Rs.3,14,496/- (Rupees three

lakhs fourteen thousand four hundred and ninety six only).

Consequent to the revision of monthly income, the appellant is

also entitled for an additional amount under the head loss of

earning. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.72,000/- by

taking the monthly income as Rs.8,000/- for a period of 9 months.

As I have revised the monthly income as Rs.10,000/-, he will be

entitled for a further sum of Rs.18,000/- under that head.

7. Thus the total amount of compensation receivable by

the appellant in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal

is fixed as Rs.3,32,496/- (Rupees three lakhs thirty two thousand

four hundred and ninety six only).

The insurance company shall 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