Kerala High Court
Ramachandran Nair vs K. Varghese 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.450 OF 2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 2001/2000 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI,CHANDRA BHAVANAM,
MUNDANCAVU.P.O,CHENGANNUR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.IYPE JOSEPH
SRI.V.MANOJ KUMAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 K. VARGHESE
S/O.ALEYAMMA, KALLIMKAL HOUSE,VALANJAVATTOM,
THIRUVALLA(DRIVER)THIRUVALLA.P.O,PIN-689645.
2 T.C.VARGHESE,
THANNIMOOTTIL CHARUVIL HOUSE,VALANJAVATTOM,
THIRUVALLA(OWNER),THIRUVALLA.P.O,PIN-689645.
3 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD,KAYAMKULAM,
(INSURER),KAYAMKULAM.P.O,PIN-690502.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SENIOR)
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 22.08.2022, THE COURT ON 26.08.2022 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA No.450 of 2012 2
SOPHY THOMAS, J.
------------------------------------
M.A.C.A No.450 of 2012
------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of August, 2022
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the claimant in OP(MV)
No.2001 of 2000 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Mavelikkara, challenging inadequacy of the compensation awarded.
2. On 31.01.2000, at about 11.30 a.m, the appellant met
with a road traffic accident, while he was riding a motorcycle
through the Pandanad-Chengannur road. KL-2A-2793 Mini Lorry
driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner
knocked him down and he sustained serious injuries and his right
ring finger was amputated. He approached the Tribunal claiming
compensation of Rs.1,67,000/-. But he was awarded only
Rs.37,730/- and that is under challenge.
3. The accident, injuries and the policy of the offending
vehicle are not in dispute.
4. Now let us see whether any interference is warranted in
the impugned award.
5. According to the appellant, he was a hotelier earning
monthly income of Rs.4,800/- as on the date of incident. But the
Tribunal fixed his notional income as Rs.2,000/-. No evidence was
there to prove his income. But, going by 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.2,500/-. So, for loss
of earning for two months, he was eligible to get Rs.5,000/-. Since
he was already paid Rs.4,000/- he has to get the balance
Rs.1,000/- as enhanced compensation for loss of earning.
6. Towards medical expenses, only Rs.500/- was awarded
though the appellant produced Ext.A8 medical bills. On going
through Ext.A8 bills, some of the bills do not bear the name of the
patient. Excluding the bills which do not bear the name of the
patient, the balance bill amount will come to Rs.1,818/-. After
deducting Rs.500/- already paid, the appellant is entitled to get
Rs.1,318/- towards medical expenses.
7. Ext.A8 medical bills will show that the appellant was
hospitalised for five days. So, towards bystander expenses @
Rs.200/- per day, he was eligible to get Rs.1,000/- But the
Tribunal awarded nothing. So, this Court is entitled to award
Rs.1,000/- towards bystander expenses.
8. For pain and sufferings,the appellant was given only
Rs.10,000/-. He had suffered contusion and abrasions on hands,
legs, head, chest etc. and his right ring finger was amputated. He
was hosptialised for five days. So, towards pain and sufferings,
Rs.5,000/- more is awarded.
9. Towards loss of amenities, only Rs.3,000/- was awarded.
In the accident, the appellant lost his right ring finger and
considering that fact, Rs.2,000/- more is awarded towards loss of
amenities.
10. Towards permanent disability, the appellant was awarded
only Rs.18,480/-, taking his disability as 7%, worked out under the
Workmen's Compensation Act, on amputation of ring finger. His
monthly income was assessed @ Rs.2,000/- for assessing
compensation for permanent disability. Since we have fixed his
notional income at Rs.2,500/-, it has to be reassessed as
Rs.23,100/- (2500x12x11x7/100). Since he was already paid
Rs.18,480/-, he is eligible to get the balance amount of Rs.4,620/-
towards enhanced compensation for permanent disability.
11. 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
Loss of Rs.4,000/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.1,000/-
earning
Medical Rs.500/- Rs.1,818/- Rs.1,318/-
expenses
Bystander - Rs.1,000/- Rs.1,000/-
expenses (5x200)
Pain and Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.5,000/-
sufferings
Loss of Rs.3,000/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,000/-
amenities
Permanent Rs.18,480/- Rs.23,100/- Rs.4,620/-
disability
Total Rs.35,980/- Rs.50,918/- Rs.14,938/-
12. In the result, the appellant is entitled to get Rs.14,938/-
(1000+1318+1000+5000+2000+4620) towards enhanced
compensation.
The 3rd respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation in the Bank Account of the appellant with interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation (excluding
52 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
