Neo vs Benny
2021 Latest Caselaw 18977 Ker

               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. 3092 OF 2014
 [AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)NO.418/2010 DATED 11.08.2014 ON THE
    FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA,
                                 THRISSUR]
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

             NEO, S/O. JOSE,
             AGED 27 YEARS
             PINDIYAN HOUSE, VARAKKARA DESOM AND P.O., AMBALLUR
             VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.P.V.BABY
             SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3:

    1        BENNY, S/O. JOSE,
             PALAYOOR HOUSE, VARAKKARA P.O., AMBALLUR-680325.

    2        ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
             KOCHI- 682031.

             BY ADV SRI.R.AJITH KUMAR FOR R2




     THIS    MOTOR   ACCIDENTS   CLAIMS     APPEAL   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 MACA No.3092 of 2014                    2

                                  JUDGMENT

This is an appeal preferred by the petitioner

in OP(MV)No.418 of 2010 on the file of the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The

claim petition was filed seeking compensation for

the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident

occurred on 16.03.2008. The Insurance Company

alone contested the matter by filing a written

statement wherein they admitted the coverage of

policy in respect of the vehicle involved in the

accident but disputed the liability on various

grounds. The Insurance Company also contended

that there are violation of policy conditions as

the vehicle was being driven without a valid

driving licence by the 1st respondent at the

relevant time.

2. The evidence in this case consists of oral

evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A12 from the side

of the appellant. From the side of the

respondent, Ext.B1 insurance policy was marked.

3. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the

conclusion that the accident occurred due to the

negligence of the 1st respondent and it was also

found that the 1st respondent was driving the

vehicle without any valid driving licence. The

total compensation fixed by the Tribunal is

Rs.76,020/-. Since it was found that there was

violation of policy conditions, the Insurance

Company was directed to deposit the said amount

along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum

from the date of petition and proportionate cost

and they were permitted to realize the said

amount from the 1st respondent after depositing

the same.

4. Being aggrieved by the quantum of

compensation, this appeal is filed.

5. Heard both sides.

6. The main contention put forward by the

learned counsel for the appellant is regarding

the amounts awarded under the heads of pain and

suffering and loss of amenities. He also disputes

the monthly income taken by the Tribunal for the

purpose of computing the compensation for loss of

earnings. On the other hand, the learned counsel

for the Insurance Company points out that even

though there is no evidence as to any permanent

disability, the Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.16,000/- under the head of permanent

disability which was calculated at the rate of

Rs.4,000/- each, for four teeth which were lost

by the appellant due to the injuries sustained.

7. On examining the totality of the facts and

circumstances and also taking into account the

nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner,

I am of the view that, some additional amount can

be granted to the appellant under the heads of

pain and suffering as well as loss of amenities.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am

of the view that, the awarding of Rs.5,000/-

under these heads would meet the ends of justice

and accordingly, it is granted.

8. I am not inclined to accept the contention

of the learned counsel for the insurance company

regarding the award of Rs.16,000/- for loss of

four teeth. As the loss of teeth, is a permanent

loss to a person, I do not find any infirmity on

the part of the Tribunal in awarding a reasonable

amount for the same. Under no circumstances,

Rs.16,000/- can be treated as irrational.

9. The accident which is the subject matter

of the claim occurred during the year, 2008.

According to the appellant, he was a mechanic

aged 23 years, and the monthly income claimed was

Rs 4,000/-. The Tribunal taken the monthly income

of Rs.3,500/-. In the light of 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 Rs.4,000/- as claimed by the

appellant can be accepted. The revision of

monthly income would result in an additional

compensation of Rs.1,500/- (Rs.4,000x3-10,500)

under the head of the compensation for loss of

earnings.

10. In such circumstances, the appeal is

allowed by granting an additional amount of

Rs.11,500/-(Rupees Eleven thousand and five

hundred only) which shall be deposited by the

Insurance Company along with interest and costs

as ordered by the Tribunal within a period of

three months from the date of receipt of a copy

of the judgment. It is made clear that, the

Insurance Company shall be entitled to realize

the said additional amount also from the 1st

respondent after such deposit.

The appeal is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE

pkk