Kerala High Court
T.V. Mathai vs P.A. Baiju on 9 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 18TH BHADRA, 1943
MACA NO. 1211 OF 2012
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 02.12.2011 IN OPMV 371/2009 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA, WAYANAD
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
T. MATHAI
AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY,
THAKARAPPALLIL VEEDU, P.O.KUNNAMANGALAM,
NALLOORMAD VILLAGE, MANANTHAVADY TALUK,
WAYANAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SUDHISSH
SMT.M.MANJU
SRI.K.R.RANJITH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 P.A. BAIJU, S/O. P.P.AUGUSTY,
1/147, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
NADAVAYAL,
WAYANAD DISTRICT 673101.
2 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE-I, P.B.NO.207,
PARCO TOWER, IVTH FLOOR,
P.M.TAJ ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001.
BY ADV SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN THIRUVALLA, FOR R2
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.08.2021, THE COURT ON 09.09.2021 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NO.1211 OF 2012
2
JUDGMENT
The appellant while travelling in a car, on
09.02.2009 from Wayanad to Theni met with an
accident, wherein the car capsized and fell into a
nearby field. The appellant sustained injuries of
fracture of medial malleolus left and a sprain in
the ankle. He was taken to the Well Care Hospital,
Palakkad. Ext.A4 is the wound certificate issued.
He was treated as an inpatient for one day and was
discharged on 10.02.2009. He continued his
treatment from Leo Hospital, Kalpetta, where he was
treated between 10.02.2009 to 17.02.2009 and later
between 23.08.2010 to 26.08.2010 for the purpose of
removing the implant. He had preferred a claim
before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Wayanad.
The Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹84,900/- with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as
compensation. Aggrieved by the quantum of the
compensation awarded, the appellant has preferred
MACA NO.1211 OF 2012
this appeal.
2. Heard Sri.Sudhissh R., learned counsel for
the appellant and Sri.George Cherian, learned
counsel for the respondents.
3. The main contention of the appellant is that
the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the notional
income of the appellant as ₹3,000/-. According to
the appellant, he was working as a Coolie as well as
was an Agriculturist and he had claimed ₹6,000/- to
be his monthly income. Relying on the decision in
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co.Ltd., reported in [AIR 2011 SC 2951],
it is contended that the appellant is entitled to
have his notional income fixed at ₹6,000/- at least
since the accident happened 5 years after the
accident that was considered in Ramachandrappa
supra. There is no serious objection to this
contention from the insurer also since the law on
the point is well settled. Another contention
raised by the appellant is that the Tribunal did not
MACA NO.1211 OF 2012
grant any amount towards loss of amenities and that
the amount granted towards pain and suffering was
very low. The next contention that is raised is
that the petitioner was hospitalised for 13 days and
the bystanders expenses that was granted was only at
the rate of ₹100 per day, which was on the lower
side. It is further contended that the multiplier
of 8 was wrongly applied. According to the
appellant, he was 55 years old at the time of
accident and the multiplier to be adopted was 11.
Annexure A5 discharge summary would show the age of
the appellant as 54. Annexure A8 discharge summary
from the Leo Hospital also shows his age as 54
years. The claim petition shows his age as 55
years. It is seen from the file that on 26.08.2009,
the Electoral Identity Card of the petitioner had
also been placed before the Tribunal, which shows
that his age as on 01.01.1999 was 45 years. Since
there is no specific proof regarding the age, I do
not find anything wrong with the finding of the
MACA NO.1211 OF 2012
Tribunal that he had crossed the age of 55 at the
time of the accident, which took place on
09.02.2009. Going by the judgment in Sarla Verma
v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2010(2)
KLT 802 (SC) the multiplier to be adopted in the
case of persons who have crossed 55 years is 9. The
multiplier 8 adopted by the Tribunal is hence not
correct and it is to be 9 instead. Since no amount
has been granted under the head loss of amenities, I
am of the opinion that the appellant can be granted
a sum of ₹15,000/- towards loss of amenities. The
manner in which the Tribunal had arrived at the
compensation is shown in the form of a table:
Sl. Head of the Claim Amount Amount
No. Claimed(Rs.) Awarded(Rs.)
1 Loss of earning (total) Rs.36,000/- Rs.9,000/-
2 Loss of earning Nil Nil
(partial)
3 Medical and Rs.50,000/- Rs.32,000/-
miscellaneous expenses
4 Future treatment N.A. N.A.
5 Bystanders expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.1,300/-
6 Transportation expenses Rs.20,000/- Rs.2,000/-
7 Extra nourishment Rs.3,000/- Rs.1,300/-
8 Damage to clothing, Rs.1,000/- Rs.500/-
etc.
MACA NO.1211 OF 2012
9 Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/- Rs.10,000/-
10 Loss of dependency N.A. N.A.
11 Loss of consortium N.A. N.A.
12 Loss of love and N.A. N.A.
affection
13 Compensation for Rs.25,000/- Rs.28,800/-
permanent disability
14 Loss of amenities and N.A. N.A.
convenience, etc.
15 Loss of earning power Rs.25,000/- Nil
16 Mental shock Rs.25,000/- N.A.
Total Rs.84,900/-
4. In the light of the modifications, which are
required for arriving at the just compensation, as
indicated in the previous paragraph, the
compensation payable to the appellant is re-fixed in
the following manner:
Sl. Head of the Amount Amount Amount as
No. Claim Claimed(Rs.) Awarded(Rs.) modified by
this
Court(Rs.)
1 Loss of earning Rs.36,000/- Rs.9,000/- Rs.18,000/-
(total) (6000x3)
2 Loss of earning Nil Nil
(partial)
3 Medical and Rs.50,000/- Rs.32,000/- Rs.32,000/-
miscellaneous
expenses
4 Future treatment N.A. N.A.
5 Bystanders Rs.5,000/- Rs.1,300/- Rs.2,600/-
expenses (200x13)
6 Transportation Rs.20,000/- Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/-
expenses
7 Extra Rs.3,000/- Rs.1,300/- Rs.1,300/-
MACA NO.1211 OF 2012
nourishment
8 Damage to Rs.1,000/- Rs.500/- Rs.500/-
clothing, etc.
9 Pain and Rs.25,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
suffering
10 Loss of N.A. N.A.
dependency
11 Loss of N.A. N.A.
consortium
12 Loss of love and N.A. N.A.
affection
13 Compensation for Rs.25,000/- Rs.28,800/- Rs.64,800/-
permanent (6000x12x9x
disability 10/100)
14 Loss of N.A. N.A. Rs.15,000/-
amenities and
convenience,
etc.
15 Loss of earning Rs.25,000/- Nil Nil
power
16 Mental shock Rs.25,000/- N.A. N.A
Total Rs.84,900/- Rs.1,46,200/-
In the result, the appellant will be entitled to
an additional amount of ₹61,300/- (Rupees Sixty One
Thousand Three Hundred only) towards enhanced
compensation. The 2nd respondent shall deposit the
enhanced compensation awarded by this Court along
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the
date of the petition (26.08.2009) till the date of
payment, within 2 months from the date of receipt of
a certified copy of this judgment, after deducting
MACA NO.1211 OF 2012
any amount to which the appellant is liable towards
balance court fee and legal benefit fund. The
disbursement of the compensation to the appellant
shall be in accordance with law.
The appeal is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI
JUDGE
Pn
