Sureshkumar @ Shaji vs Dr.P.K.Umash
2021 Latest Caselaw 22883 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA,
                                   1943
                        MACA NO. 427 OF 2012
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 1529/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS
                     CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/PETITIONER       :

               SURESHKUMAR @ SHAJI,
               AGED 66 YEARS,
               S/O. JANARDHANAN ACHARI,
               PUNNUCHIRA VEEDU, NALLUKODI POST,
               CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
               BY ADVS.
               SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI
               SRI.V.A.SATHEESH


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS        :

    1          DR.P.K.UMASH, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN,
               K.K.HOUSE, KANNANKARA POST,
               CHELANNUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
    2          THE MANAGER,
               NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
               II FLOOR, NEWRA BUILDINGS,
               MAVOOR ROAD, CALICUT.
               BY ADVS.
               SRI.T.B.HOOD
               SMT.M.ISHA
               SRI.AMAL KASHA
               BY SMT.SARAH SALVY, STANDING COUNSEL

        THIS    MOTOR   ACCIDENT     CLAIMS   APPEAL   HAVING   BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 23.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 M.A.C.A.No.427 of 2012                 ..2..




                     M.A.C.A.No.427 of 2012
           -------------------------------------------------------


                            JUDGMENT

Being aggrieved by the award dated 15.06.2010 in

O.P.(MV)No.1529 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, the petitioner

approached this Court by filing this appeal. Respondents herein

are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

Petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- for

the injuries allegedly sustained by her in a motor accident

happened on 14.10.2008 at about 7 p.m. According to him

while he was walking along the side of Balussery-Kozhikode

road, motor cycle KL-11-L-1064 hit against him causing serious

injuries and he was treated at Medical College hospital.

Accident was due to negligence of the rider of motor cycle. 1 st M.A.C.A.No.427 of 2012 ..3..

respondent is the RC owner cum rider rider and 2 nd respondent

is the insurer of the offending vehicle.

4. R2 filed written statement and admitted the

policy, but liability and quantum of compensation were

disputed.

5. The Tribunal adjudicated the matter after

marking Exts.A1 to A7 on the part of the petitioner. No

evidence let in by the respondents. Finally, the Tribunal

granted Rs.12,407/- as compensation with 7% interest.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would

submit that the petitioner sustained serious head injuries and

he underwent 8 days of hospitalisation in consequence thereof.

Therefore, compensation granted under the heads loss of

earnings, pain and sufferings and extra nourishment are on

lower side and therefore, the same required to be enhanced.

7. The learned counsel for the insurance

company would submit that only minor injuries sustained to

the appellant and the Tribunal granted reasonable M.A.C.A.No.427 of 2012 ..4..

compensation taking note of the minor injures in a case where

there is no evidence to show any hospitalisation or treatment

as inpatient.

8. Having appraised the contentions, I have gone

through Ext.A2, copy of wound certificate and Ext.A5, CT Scan

report. In fact, the impression that could be gathered from

Ext.A5 are as follows;

Multiple hemorrhagic contusions.

SAH involving right frontoparietal cortical sulci.

Thin extra axial hematoma right parietal region.

9. No evidence to show that the petitioner was

hospitalised as an inpatient and also to show the treatment he

underwent. What could be gathered from a combined reading

of Ext.A2 and Ext.A5 is that the petitioner sustained some

minor head injuries without any fracture. This might have

tempted the Tribunal to reduce the compensation and to limit

the same to Rs.12,407/-.

10. As I have already pointed out, Exts.A2 and A5 M.A.C.A.No.427 of 2012 ..5..

would go to show that the petitioner sustained some head

injuries though the same are not serious. The Tribunal granted

15 days of loss of earnings at the rate of Rs.100/-. The accident

is of the year 2008. Following the ratio in [(2011) 13 SCC

236], Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., monthly income of the

appellant is fixed at Rs.4,500/- and the said sum is granted for

a period of one month. Reducing Rs.1,500/- granted by the

Tribunal, Rs.3,000/- more is granted under this head.

11. Coming to the head pain and sufferings, only

Rs.6,000/- was granted by the Tribunal and the learned counsel

canvassed enhancement. Having considered the head injuries

as extracted above, I am inclined to grant Rs.10,000/- more

under the head pain and sufferings and Rs.5,000/- more

under the head loss of amenities also.

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. It is

ordered that the appellant is entitled to get enhanced

compensation to the tune of Rs.18,000/-(Rupees Eighteen M.A.C.A.No.427 of 2012 ..6..

Thousand only) at the rate of 7% interest granted by the

Tribunal excluding the amount already granted by the Tribunal

from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation.

The insurance company is directed to deposit the same in the

name of the appellant within two months from today and on

deposit, the appellant is at liberty to to release the same.

Sd/-

A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE rkj