Sooraj @ Anwar vs The Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C
2021 Latest Caselaw 18867 Ker

M.A.C.A.2155/2013                        1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
  FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 19TH BHADRA, 1943
                         MACA NO. 2155 OF 2013
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 472/2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
                    CLAIMS TRIBUNAL PALA, KOTTAYAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

            SOORAJ @ ANWAR,
            S/O.USMAN BHAI, THIRUVADIPURAYIDOM HOUSE,
            PUTHVAL PURAVIDOM, NEAR SMB PALACE, KOLLAM.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL)
            SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR



RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:

            THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C.,
            KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, FORT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 023.

            BY ADV SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD
            TRANSPORT CORPN.


      THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON        10.09.2021,    THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 M.A.C.A.2155/2013                       2

                             JUDGMENT

This is an appeal filed by the petitioner in O.P.(MV).No.472/2010

on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. The claim

petition was filed by him seeking compensation for the injuries

sustained to him in a motor accident occurred on 14.09.2009, when the

vehicle driven by the petitioner was hit by a KSRTC bus. According to

the appellant, he was aged 42 at the time of accident and was a driver

by profession. He contents that he sustained permanent disablement

owing to the injuries sustained in the accident. His monthly income is

claimed as Rs.8,000/-. As compensation, an amount of Rs.6,89,000/-

was claimed and the same was limited to Rs.3,00,000/-.

2. The 2nd respondent contested the matter by filing a written

statement, wherein they disputed the negligence on the part of the 1 st

respondent driver and contended that the accident occurred due to the

negligence of the petitioner himself. The quantum of compensation

was also disputed by them.

3. During the trial conducted, from the side of the appellant

he got himself examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A16 were marked. The

disability certificate issued by the Medical Board was marked as

Ext.X1. No evidence was adduced from the side of the respondents.

4. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the

accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 1 st

respondent and hence it was found that the respondents are

responsible to pay the compensation. Amount of compensation was

fixed as Rs.1,98,100/- and the respondents were directed to deposit the

said amount along with interest at the rate of Rs.7.5% per annum from

the date of petition till realization. This appeal is filed being aggrieved

by the quantum of compensation.

5. Heard both sides. One of the contentions put forward by

the learned counsel for the appellant is that the monthly income taken

by the Tribunal is very low. Even though an amount of Rs.8,000/-

claimed, the Tribunal has taken only Rs.4,000/-. On examining the said

contention on the basis of records available with this Court, it can be

seen that, apart from the oral evidence of the appellant, no documents

were produced. It is claimed by the appellant that he was employed as

a driver in KTS Parcel service. However, in the absence of any

documents to prove the same, the entire monthly income as claimed by

him cannot be taken into consideration. This is particularly because,

despite having a regular employment with a company he failed to

produce necessary documents to prove the same. However, I am of the

view that the monthly income of Rs.4,000/- as taken by the Tribunal is

very low, even in the absence of any evidence. While applying the

principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq v.

Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company

[(2014) 2 SCC 735] and Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal

Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236] ,

the monthly income of the appellant herein can be reasonably fixed at

Rs.7,000/-, in view of the fact that the accident occurred in the year

2009.

6. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the

appellant is relating to the percentage of disability. Even though, as

per Ext.X1 certificate, 22% disability has been certified by the Medical

Board, the Tribunal has taken only 18%. There is absolutely no reason

stated in support of the said finding in the award. Since the

percentage of disability is certified by a body of doctors who are duly

competent in this regard, I do not find any reason to discard the same

and accept a lesser percentage of disability. In such circumstances,

the compensation can be determined by taking the percentage of

disability as 22%.

7. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent

points out that, while computing the compensation for permanent

disability, Tribunal committed an error by applying the multiplier as 15.

He points out that going by the multiplier fixed by Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport

Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121], proper multiplier should

have been 14 as the appellant was aged 42 at the relevant time. The

said contention is sustainable in the light of the principles laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it is accepted. In the light of the above

finding, the compensation under the head of disability has to be re-

worked as Rs.2,58,720/- (Rupees Two lakhs fifty eight thousand seven

hundred and twenty only) (7000 x 12 x 14 x 22%). The Tribunal has

awarded an amount of Rs.1,29,600/- under this head. Hence, the

balance amount receivable by the appellant shall be Rs.1,29,120/-

(Rupees One lakh twenty nine thousand one hundred and twenty only).

8. Consequent to the revision of monthly income, the

appellant shall be entitled for some more amount under the head of

loss of earnings. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.24,000/-,

which was calculated for a period of six months. Even though the

learned counsel for the appellant contended that the period fixed by

the Tribunal for assessing the compensation under this head is

inadequate, I am not inclined to accept the same. Taking into account

the nature of injuries, disability and period of hospitalization

undergone by the appellant, I am of the view that the period taken by

the Tribunal is reasonable. However, as the monthly income has been

revised as Rs.7,000/-, he will be entitled for a further amount of

Rs.18,000/- (7000 x 6 - 24000). Another head to which my attention

brought was pain and sufferings. The Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.25,000/-. The nature of injuries and the period of hospitalization

clearly indicates insufficiency of the amount under this head. I am of

the view that taking into account all the circumstances in this case, a

further amount of Rs.15,000/- would serve the ends of justice in this

regard. Similarly, the amount awarded under the head of loss of

amenities is very meager. Taking into account the percentage of

disability, a further sum of Rs.25,000/- can be granted under this head.

In such circumstances, the appeal is allowed by granting an

additional amount of Rs.1,87,120/- (Rupees One lakh eighty seven

thousand one hundred and twenty only) (1,29,120 + 18,000 + 15,000 +

25,000) and the 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the said amount

along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum within a period of

three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE DG/13.9.21