Kerala High Court
K.P.Raiith Kumar @ Raji vs V.V.Vasu 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. 683 OF 2012
OP(MV)NO.226/2005 OF I ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE OP(MV):
K.P.RAJITH KUMAR @ RAJI,
S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 29 YEARS, PALLIRIKOTTU HOUSE,
P.O.PANTHEERANKAVU, MUNDUPALAM, CALICUT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN
SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV):
1 V.V.VASU, S/O.IMBICHI KANNAN, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE,
PANNIYANKARA P.O., CALICUT-673 009.
2 RAJEEV,
S/O.KUTTIRAMAN, AGED 25 YEARS, OTTAPILAKKIL HOUSE,
THAZHEKKODE, MANASSERY, CALICUT-673 602.
3 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BANGLOORE DIVISIONAL OFFICE-I, 3RD FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING
ANNEXE, 72, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR
SRI.P.JAYASANKAR
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 22.08.2022, THE COURT ON 26.08.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA 683 of 2012 2
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the claimant in
OP(MV)No.226 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, alleging inadequacy of
the compensation awarded.
2. On 28.02.2004, at 8.30 p.m., the appellant, a 29
year old Coolie, while stepping out of KL-11/P-2005 bus,
driven by the 2nd respondent, the driver negligently moved
the bus forward and as a result, he fell down from the bus
and sustained injuries. He was taken to Government
Hospital, Calicut and from there to Medical College Hospital,
Kozhikode. He sustained serious head injury because of the
accident and he was admitted and treated in hospital 9
times. He approached the Tribunal claiming compensation
of Rs.2,50,000/-, but the Tribunal awarded only
Rs.1,01,840/-. Challenging the same, he has come up with
this appeal.
3. The 1st respondent was the owner, 2nd respondent
was the driver and the 3rd respondent was the Insurer of
the offending bus. The accident, injury and the policy of the
offending vehicle are not in dispute.
4. According to the appellant, though he was earning
monthly income of Rs.5,000/-, the Tribunal took his notional
income as Rs.2,250/-, and it could not be justified. He was
not able to do any work for more than six months and he
suffered permanent disability of 15%. But the Tribunal failed
to take into account his permanent disability. Overall, the
compensation awarded was too meager, according to him.
5. The appellant was a 24 year old Coolie and the
accident occurred in the year 2004. It is true that the
Tribunal took his notional income as Rs.2,250/-. According
to him, he was a Coolie, earning monthly income of
Rs.5,000/-, though there is no evidence to prove his income.
As per the decision Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR
2011 SC 2951], in the year 2004, he was eligible to get his
notional income fixed @ Rs.4,500/-. So, for loss of earning
for six months, he was eligible to get Rs.27,000/-. He was
already paid Rs.13,500/- under that head. So, he is eligible
to get the balance amount of Rs.13,500/- as enhanced
compensation for loss of earning.
6. For pain and suffering, he was given only Rs.7,000/-.
He had suffered serious head injury and he was hospitalised
for 16 days. So, he is eligible to get Rs.8,000/- more under
the head 'pain and suffering' as enhance compensation.
7. Towards permanent disability of 15% proved
through Ext.C1, he was awarded only Rs.72,900/-, taking
his monthly income @ Rs.2,250/-. Since we have fixed his
notional income as Rs.4,500/-, he was eligible to get
Rs.1,45,800/- towards permanent disability. Since he was
already paid Rs.72,900/-, he is eligible to get the balance
amount of Rs.72,900/- as enhanced compensation for
permanent disability.
8. He was awarded nothing towards loss of amenities.
Considering the gravity of the injuries suffered by him and
15% disability, at least Rs.10,000/- could have been
awarded towards loss of amenities. So, he is eligible to get
Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities.
9. Towards bystander expenses, he was given only
Rs.100/- per day for 16 days of hospitalisation. He was
eligible to get Rs.200/- per day and so, he is eligible to get
the balance Rs.1,600/- as enhanced compensation towards
bystander expenses.
10. Towards extra nourishment, he was given only
Rs.75/- per day for the actual days of hospitalisation. Since
he had suffered serious head injury, he might have been
surviving on liquid foods and considering that fact, Rs.100/-
per day was only reasonable. So, he is eligible to get
Rs.400/- more under the head 'extra nourishment'.
11. The compensation awarded under all other heads is
reasonable and it need not be interfered with.
Head of claim Amount Amount Difference to be
awarded by awarded in drawn as
the Tribunal appeal enhanced
compensation
Loss of earning Rs.13,500/- Rs.27,000/- Rs.13,500 /-
Pain and Rs.7,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.8,000/-
suffering
Permanent Rs.72,900/- Rs.1,45,800/- Rs.72,900/-
disability
Loss of .... Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
amenities
Bystander
expenses Rs.1,600/- Rs.3,200/- Rs.1,600/-
Extra Rs.1,200/- Rs.1,600/- Rs.400/-
nourishment
Total Rs.1,06,400/-
12. In the result, the appellant is entitled to get
Rs.1,06,400/- (13,500 + 8,000 + 72,900 + 10,000 +1,600
+ 400) (Rupees One Lakh Six Thousand and Four Hundred
only) as enhanced compensation.
13. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company is directed
to deposit the enhanced compensation in the Bank account
of the appellant with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the
date of petition till the date of deposit 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.
The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS
JUDGE
DSV/25.08.2022
