Kerala High Court
Shili vs N.P.Manoj on 26 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 4TH BHADRA, 1944
MACA NO.736 OF 2014
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 535/2007 OF 1ST
ADDITIONAL MACT, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SHILI
S/O. CHANDRAN, THARAYIL HOUSE, P.O.OLAVANNA,
KOZHIKODE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.AVM.SALAHUDDEEN
SMT.A.D.DIVYA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS NOS.2 TO 4:
1 N.P.MANOJ
JHANILATH HOUSE, PAYAM AMSOM, DESOM,
PUNARATHIVASA COLONY, IRITTY, VALLIKKAD, KANNUR
DISTRICT-670703.
2 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
NOOR COMPLEX, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673001.
3 K.P.GOVINDAN
RAVIPURAM P.O, CHENNARATHUR, VADAKARA,
KOZHIKODE-673103.
BY ADV DEEPA GEORGE
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 22.08.2022, THE COURT ON 26.08.2022
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA No.736 of 2014 2
SOPHY THOMAS, J.
------------------------------------
M.A.C.A No.736 of 2014
------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of August, 2022
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the claimant in
OP (MV) No.535 of 2007 on the file of 1 st Additional Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, challenging inadequacy of the
compensation awarded.
2. On 23.07.2006 at 7.30 p.m while the appellant was
travelling in KL-11/A 1685 autorickshaw through Ullikkal- Vallithodu
road, due to the rash and negligent driving by the 1 st respondent,
the autorickshaw lost its control and it turned turtle and the
appellant sustained serious injuries. He was taken to Medical
College Hospital, Pariyaram and from there he was referred to
Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode where he was admitted and
treated. Even after discharge from the Medical College Hospital,
Kozhikode, he was treated at District Co-operative Hospital and
MIMS Hospital. He approached the Tribunal claiming compensation
of Rs.10 lakh. But he was awarded only Rs.7,65,038/-. Hence this
appeal.
3. The accident, injuries and the policy of the offending
vehicle are not in dispute.
4. Now let us see whether any interference is called for in the
impugned award.
5. The appellant would say that, he was a 26 year old mason
earning monthly income of Rs.4,500/-. The Tribunal fixed his
notional income as Rs.4,500/-. Since the accident was in the year
2006, as per the decision Ramchandrappa vs. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited (AIR 2011 SC
2951), he was eligible to get his notional income fixed at
Rs.5,500/-. But his claim was only for Rs.4,500/- and the Tribunal
accepted that income as such. No interference is warranted to the
notional income fixed.
6. Towards bystander expenses, the appellant was awarded
only Rs.150/- per day. Since the accident was in the year 2006,
Rs.200/- per day is justified. So, he is eligible to get Rs.3,750/-
towards enhanced compensation for bystander expenses.
7. Towards pain and sufferings, Rs.10,000 more is awarded
considering the injuries the appellant had suffered and the period of
hospitalisation.
8. Towards loss of amenities also, Rs.10,000/- more is
awarded as the appellant was hospitalised on several occasions and
suffered disability also which was permanent in nature.
9. For disfiguration, the appellant was awarded only
Rs.10,000/-. He was eligible to get Rs.15,000/- more for
disfiguration of his left arm.
10. For loss of earning, the appellant was awarded
Rs.22,500/- for five months. He was hospitalised for 75 days and
so, his loss of earning might have been for more than six months.
This Court is inclined to take the period of loss of earning as eight
months @ Rs.4,500/-. So, he is eligible to get Rs.13,500/- as
enhanced compensation towards loss of earning.
11. Ext.C1, the certificate of the Medical Board, shows that the
appellant had suffered permanent disability of 65%. Since the
disability was 65%, future prospects also could have been added to
his income. Since he was a 26 year old mason, he was eligible for
addition of 40% towards future prospects. If that be so, his income
would have been fixed at Rs.6,300/-. So, for 65% disability,
applying the multiplier 17, compensation for permanent disability
would have been assessed as Rs.8,35,380/-
(6300x12x17x65/100). Since he was already awarded
Rs.6,31,800/-, he was eligible to get the balance Rs.2,03,580/-.
12. The compensation awarded under all other heads seems
to be just and reasonable and it needs no interference.
Head of Amount Amount awarded Difference to
claim awarded by in appeal be drawn as
the Tribunal enhanced
compensation
Bystander Rs.11,250/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.3,750/-
expenses
Pain and Rs.15,000/- Rs.25,000/- Rs.10,000/-
sufferings
Loss of Rs.10,000/- Rs.20,000/- Rs.10,000/-
amenities and
enjoyment in
life
Compensation Rs.10,000/- Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/-
for
disfiguration
Loss of Rs.22,500/- Rs.36,000/- Rs.13,500/-
earning
Compensation Rs.6,31,800/- Rs.8,35,380/- Rs.2,03,580/-
for permanent
disability
Total Rs.7,00,550/- Rs.9,56,380/- Rs.2,55,830/-
13. In the result, the appellant is entitled to get
Rs.2,55,830/- (3750+10000+10000+15000+13500+203580) as
enhanced compensation.
The 2nd respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation in the Bank Account of the appellant with interest @
8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation (excluding
721 days of delay in filing the appeal) within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The deposit
must be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular
No.3 of 2019 dated 06/09/2019 and clarified in
O.M.No.D1/62475/2016 dated 07/11/2019 after deducting the
liabilities, if any, of the appellant towards Tax, balance court fee and
legal benefit fund.
This appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS
JUDGE
smp
