Shajimon vs The New India Assurance Co Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 21099 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
 WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 28TH ASWINA,
                            1943
                  MACA NO. 1445 OF 2012


 AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)NO. 1286/2007 OF ADDITIONAL
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM DATED 30.3.2011


APPELLANT/PETITIONER :

         SHAJIMON
         S/O PEER MOHAMMED RAWTHER,
         SHAJI MANZIL, MUTHOOR P.O.,
         THIRUVALLA,
         NOW RESIDING AT CHUDUKATTU PARAMBIL HOUSE,
         PERUNNA P.O., CHANGANACHERRY.
         BY ADV SRI.P.S.PRADEEP


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.3 :

         THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
         CHANGANOOR BRANCH, KOTTAYAM,
         PIN:686 101.
         BY SRI.PADMANABHA PANICKER, STANDING COUNSEL



     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 20.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA No.1445 of 2012                 ..2..




                   M.A.C.A.No.1445 of 2012
         -------------------------------------------------------


                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner in O.P.(MV)No.1266 of 2007 on the file

of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, who is

dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the

learned Tribunal, has approached this Court by filing this

appeal. The original third respondent is the sole respondent in

this appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case:

The petitioner, who admittedly working as Overseer

in KSEB, met with an accident on 30.09.2006 at about 5.30

p.m. while riding on his Honda Activa Scooter bearing

registration No.KL-3M-3216 and he sustained injuries in

consequence thereof. Arraying negligence against the first MACA No.1445 of 2012 ..3..

respondent, the driver of the mini school bus bearing

registration No.KL-4J-4058, the petitioner claimed Rs.7 lakh as

compensation.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the

appellant/petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the

insurance company.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, the driver and owner

of the alleged offending vehicle were set exparte by the

Tribunal.

5. The third respondent, insurer of the alleged

offending vehicle filed a written statement admitting the policy

and disputing the quantum of compensation.

6. The Tribunal after marking Exts.A1 to A8 on

the side of the petitioner granted Rs.1,38,050/-.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would

submit that the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the monthly

income at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month and the appellant

is entitled to get notional income at the rate of Rs.5,500/- per MACA No.1445 of 2012 ..4..

month for the purpose of calculating loss of earnings as well as

disability income. Repelling this submission, it is submitted by

the learned counsel for the insurance company that,

admittedly, the appellant is a person having permanent

employment as Overseer in KSEB and no document is

produced to show any loss of earnings or to show any loss of

income due to the accident so as to entitle him for the above

claims.

8. Though the learned counsel for the appellant

canvassed increase on the above heads, after a while, the

learned counsel conceded that since the appellant has been

working as a permanent employee in KSEB, the appellant is

satisfied with the increase in the other heads which he is

entitled considering the nature of injuries as well as the

treatment thereof for a period of twelve days. In view of the

submission, I have perused wound certificate and discharge

certificate marked as Exts.A5 and A6 issued from Pushpagirl

Medical College Hospital. The above documents would MACA No.1445 of 2012 ..5..

substantiate the fact that the appellant sustained lacerated

wound on the right side of forehead, multiple abrasions on the

face, diplopia right eye and sub conjunctival haemorrhage right

eye.

9. The appellant claimed Rs.2 lakh under the

head pain and sufferings highlighting the above injuries.

However, the Tribunal granted only Rs.18,000/- under this

head. I am of the view that Rs.10,000/- more under the head

pain and sufferings can be granted in addition to the amount

granted by the Tribunal. Thus Rs.10,000/- more is granted.

The learned counsel for the appellant is right in canvassing

increase under the head loss of amenities considering the

nature of injuries sustained. It is submitted by the learned

counsel for the appellant further that the appellant sustained

disfigurement and he is entitled to get compensation under

that head also. However, no document is produced to

substantiate the said claim apart from the disability certificate.

MACA No.1445 of 2012 ..6..

10. Having noticed the injuries and consequential

treatment as discussed, I am of the view that Rs.8,000/-

granted by the Tribunal under the head loss of amenities is on

lower side. Therefore, the same can be increased to

Rs.17,000/- more. Similarly, Rs.2,000/- more can be granted

under the head Extra nourishment.

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.29,000/-(Rupees Twenty Nine

Thousand only) at the rate of 7.5% 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 petitioner within two months from today.

Sd/-

A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE rkj