Kerala High Court
Senson P.B @ Senson Baby vs Mohanan on 27 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
SATURDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
MACA NO. 1318 OF 2018
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 26.2.2018 IN OPMV 1373/2014 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SENSON P.B @ SENSON BABY,
AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. BABY, PADINJAKKARA HOUSE, RESIDING
AT VETTILAPARA 15/2 DESOM, ATHIRAPILLY VILLAGE,
VETTILAPARA P.O., CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
SRI.EBIN GOPURAN
SRI.JOSEPH GOPURAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 MOHANAN, S/O. SANKARAN, 39, IDASSERY HOUSE, PARIYARAM
P.O., CHALAKUDY-680301
OWNER:KL-45/E 5626 MOTORCYCLE.
2 PRAVEEN FRANCIS, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, KUTTIKAD P.O.,
PARIYARAM 680721 RIDER: KL-45/E 5626 MOTORCYCLE.
3 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
IRINJALAKUDA, INSURER : KL-45/E 5626 MOTORCYCLE.
BY ADV SMT.SARAH SALVY, SC
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 27.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA No.1318/2018
-:2:-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th day of November, 2021
The claimant at the court below is the appellant. He
challenges the quantum of compensation awarded vide impugned
award.
2. The claimant met with an accident on 2.6.2014 at about
5.45 pm. While the claimant was riding his motor cycled bearing
registration No.KL-45/B 5389 through Athirapilly-Chalakudy
public road, a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-45/E 5626
owned by the 1st respondent and driven by the 2nd respondent in
a rash and negligent manner hit against the motor cycle driven
by the claimant and he sustained injuries. The Tribunal found
that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the 2nd respondent which is not under challenge. The
3rd respondent is admittedly the insurer of the vehicle. The
liability of the 3rd respondent is admitted. The claimant claimed a
total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded
only Rs.2,50,335/-. Dissatisfied with the said award, the
MACA No.1318/2018
claimant has preferred this appeal.
3. I have heard Sri. Joseph Gopuran, the learned counsel
for the appellant and Smt. Sarah Salvy, the learned Standing
Counsel for the 3rd respondent insurer.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
he challenges the amount awarded by the Tribunal under two
heads. Head Nos. 8 and 9 towards permanent disability and loss
of amenities respectively. Towards permanent disability, the
claimant claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and the Tribunal
awarded only Rs.1,02,000/-. The said amount was arrived at by
taking into account the income at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per
month. There is no dispute regarding the multiplier applied.
Applying the dictum laid down in Ramachandrappa v
Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company
Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236], I am of the view that the income
has to be fixed at the rate of Rs.9,500/- per month. On such
calculation, the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,93,800/- towards the
permanent disability. The Tribunal awarded only Rs.1,02,000/-.
Hence, the difference would come to Rs.91,800/-. Towards the
MACA No.1318/2018
loss of amenities, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.30,000/-. The
claim was for Rs.2,00,000/-. Ext.X1 would show that due to the
accident, the claimant has lost his smell and taste. In these
circumstances, I am of the view that the amount of Rs.30,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of amenities is low. I
reassess the compensation on the said count at Rs.75,000/-.
The difference would come to Rs.45,000/-.
Thus the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation
of Rs.1,36,800/-. The 3rd respondent is directed to deposit the
additional compensation of Rs.1,36,800/- (Rupees one lakh thirty
six thousand eight hundred) along with interest at proportionate
rate as ordered by the Tribunal, within three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appeal is allowed
as above.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
kp True copy
P.A. To Judge
