M. Radhakrishnan vs T.M. Nizabden
2021 Latest Caselaw 18176 Ker

M.A.C.A.1103/2014                    1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
    FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943
                        MACA NO. 1103 OF 2014
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 722/2011 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR
           ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM
APPELLANT/S:

            M.RADHAKRISHNAN,
            S/O.MADHAVAN, KAMALA NIVAS, THIRUVAMPADY P.O,
            ALAPPUZHA 2.

            BY ADV SRI.JACOB E.SIMON


RESPONDENT/S:

     1      T.M.NIZABDEN,
            S/O.BASHEER, ALPHAMANZIL, KARAPUZHA P.O,
            NEAR KARAPUZHA GOVERNMENT H.S, KOTTAYAM, PIN 686 032.

    *2      NISHAMUDEEN,
            S/O.SAINUDEEN, MALIAKEL HOUSE, KUMMANAM P.O, KOTTAYAM
            PIN 686 035.

            *(R2 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF
            THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 03.12.2019 IN
            I.A.NO.1/2019)

     3      UNIVERSAL SAMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
            CENTRAL ARCADE, AZAD ROAD, NORTH END, KALOOR,
            COCHIN 17, PIN 682 017.

            BY ADV DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY

     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 M.A.C.A.1103/2014                    2

                            JUDGMENT

This is an appeal filed by the petitioner in O.P.(MV).No.722 of

2011 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

Kottayam. The original petition was filed by him seeking

compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor

accident occurred on 23.01.2011. According to the appellant, the

accident occurred when the autorickshaw on which the appellant

was traveling, was hit by a Maruthi car driven by the 1 st

respondent, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd

respondent. He contents that he sustained serious injuries in the

accident. According to him he was conducting a juice shop with a

monthly income of Rs.5,000/- and he was aged 42 at the time of

accident.

2. The owner and driver had chosen not to contest the

matter. The 3rd respondent filed written statement admitting the

coverage of policy but denied the liability on various grounds.

Quantum of compensation was also seriously disputed by them.

3. Evidence in this case consists of Exts A1 to A18 from

the side of the appellant and no evidence was adduced from the

side of the respondents. After the trial, the Tribunal found that the

accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the car

and being the insurer of the vehicle, the 3 rd respondent was

directed to deposit the amount of compensation. The quantum of

compensation was determined as Rs.78,300/- and the 3 rd

respondent was directed to deposit the said amount along with

interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum from the date of petition till

realization. Being dissatisfied with the said compensation this

appeal is filed.

4. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant

would point out that the amounts awarded under the heads of pain

and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of earning are on lower

side. According to him, even though he claimed a monthly income

of Rs.5,000/-, the Tribunal taken only 4,500/-, which is not correct.

5. From the award it is seen that, on account of the

accident, he sustained the following injuries:

"(1) Fracture left occipital bone, (2) fracture left anterolateral margin of formen magnum, (3) head injury, (4) scalp haematoma in left occipital bone, (5) brain edima, (6) 2.5 cm x 1 cm haematoma in the left cerebellar region, (7) fracture ribs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and (8) fracture

scapular R."

6. Consequent to the injuries, the appellant was compelled

to undergo treatment as inpatient, for a period of fifteen days as

well. Taking into account the nature of injuries and the days of

hospitalization, the amount awarded under the heads pain and

suffering as well as loss of amenities are required to be revised,

contends the learned counsel. On going through the amounts

awarded by the Tribunal under various heads, it is seen that

Rs.25,000/- is awarded under the head pain and suffering and a

further sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of

amenities. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the

appellant, taking into account the nature of injuries and the

number of days of hospitalization, the said amounts are to be re-

worked. In the facts and circumstances of the case, an amount of

Rs.15,000/- each can be granted as additional compensation under

both the said heads.

7. Similarly, the monthly income as claimed by the

appellant, which is Rs.5,000/-, is reasonable, taking into account of

the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2011. In such

circumstances, the same is re-fixed as Rs.5,000/- and this will

result in an additional amount of Rs.3,000/- under the head of loss

of earning (5000x6-27000). Thus the total additional compensation

which the appellant is entitled for is determined as Rs.33,000/-

(Rupees Thirty three thousand only) (15000 + 15000+ 3000) and

the 3rd respondent shall deposit the said amount along with

interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum along with proportionate

cost within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE DG/6.9.21