Kerala High Court
Jithin Tom vs Santhosh on 24 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 2ND ASWINA, 1943
MACA NO.3952 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 6/2015 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESIONS &
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KALPETTA, WAYANAD
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
JITHIN TOM,
AGED 22 YEARS,
S/O.TOSSY, SANTHI BHAVAN HOUSE,
CIVIL STATION POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)
SRI.ANIL ABEY JOSE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SANTHOSH,
AGED 29 YEARS,
S/O.WILSON, NELLIYAL HOUSE, KOTTOOR,
ERUMAD POST, NEELAGIRI-643 239.
2 LEO,
AGED 31 YEARS,
1/246, THAZHATHKUDI HOUSE, AMBALAVAYAL,
KALATHUVAYAL POST, PIN-673 573.
3 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
KALPETTA, LOCAL BRANCH OF THE INSURERS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
TAJ ROAD, CALICUT.
BY ADV SMT.SARAH SALVY
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.3952/2016 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in O.P.(MV).No.6 of 2015 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta is the appellant herein.
The aforesaid claim petition was filed by him seeking
compensation for the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident
occurred on 08.09.2014. According to him, he was aged 21 years
and is a civil engineer with a monthly income of Rs.10,000/- as on
the date of accident. He sustained permanent partial disablement
on account of the injuries and as compensation, he claimed an
amount of Rs.7,00,000/-.
2. All the respondents have filed written statements
disputing their liability. As far as the contention put forward by
the 3rd respondent insurance company is concerned, it can be seen
that they have admitted the coverage of policy but disputed the
negligence as well as quantum of compensation.
3. The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A8 and
Ext.C1 disability certificate. After the trial, the Tribunal passed
an award allowing a total compensation of Rs.1,82,650/-. Since it
was found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the
1st respondent, being the insurer of the said vehicle, the 3 rd
respondent was directed to deposit the amount along with interest
at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition. Being
dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation this appeal is filed.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that
the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very low, particularly
under the head of compensation for loss of earning power and
pain and suffering. He further submits that no amount is awarded
under the head of loss of amenities. On the other hand, learned
counsel for the insurance company would submit that the award is
reasonable and no interference is warranted.
6. It is seen from the records that, for the purpose of
assessing the compensation for permanent disability, the Tribunal
has taken the monthly income as Rs.5,000/-. The Tribunal rejected
the claim of Rs.10,000/- as monthly income on the ground that the
appellant failed to produce any document to substantiate that he
is a civil engineer and also the monthly income received by him.
However, I am of the view that, even in the absence of any
documents, the monthly income of Rs.5,000/- is on lower side.
This is particularly because, the accident has occurred in the year
2014 and going by 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 amount of
Rs.10,000/- in respect of an accident occurred in the year
2014 is a reasonable figure even in the absence of any
evidence. In such circumstances, I accept the claim of the
appellant as regards the monthly income. Since the Tribunal
has accepted the percentage of disability as 8%, as certified
in Ext.C1 medical certificate, the same can be relied upon
while re-assessing the compensation in this appeal also. In
such circumstances, the amount of compensation under the
head of permanent disability comes to Rs.1,72,800/-. The
Tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.86,400/- and
hence he is entitled for a further sum of Rs.86,400/-. Towards
pain and sufferings, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is
Rs.25,000/-. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, a further sum of Rs.10,000/- can be granted under this
head. Similarly, no amount is seen awarded under the head
of loss of amenities. It is true that no amount is seen claimed
under this head in the claim petition. However, since it is
one of the essential heads, under which a victim of motor
accident is to be compensated, I am of the view that, in order
to ensure just compensation for the victim, some amount can
be granted under this head. In the facts and circumstances
of the case, I am of the view that an amount of Rs.25,000/- is
reasonable.
7. Consequent to the revision of monthly income, the
compensation granted under the head of loss of income is
also required to be modified. It is seen that the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.30,000/- which was calculated at the rate of
Rs.5,000/- for six months. As the monthly income has been
revised as Rs.10,000/-, the appellant is found entitled for a
further sum of Rs.30,000/- under this head.
Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal is
modified by granting an additional amount of Rs.1,51,400/-
(Rupees one lakh fifty one thousand and four hundred only)
[86,400 + 25,000+ 10000 +30,000] and the 3 rd respondent
insurance company shall deposit the said amount along with
interest at the rate of 9% 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/28.9.21
