Kerala High Court
National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Sabu.M 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. 1827 OF 2013
OPMV 577/2007 OF I ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
KOLLAM
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
KOLLAM, REP. BY THE MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE,
M.G.ROAD, ERNAKUKLAM, COCHIN-35.
BY ADV SRI.E.M.JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:
1 SABU M.,
S/O.MADHAVAN, PULLIYATH VEEDU, MAYYANAD P.O.,
KOLLAM-686001.
2 KABEERKUTTY,
S/O.MYTHEEN PILLAI, CHIBIDA MANZIL, NEAR ALUMMOODU.L.P.S.,
MAYYANAD P.O., KOLLAM-686 001.
3 SHAMSUDEEN,
NIZA MANZIL, PULLICHIRA, MAYYANAD, KOLLAM-686 001.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 22.08.2022, THE COURT ON 26.08.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA 1827 OF 2013 2
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the 3rd
respondent-Insurer in OP(MV)No.577 of 2007 on the file of I
Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam,
challenging the compensation awarded by the Tribunal as
excessive.
2. The 1st respondent/claimant met with a road traffic
accident on 17.09.2006 while he was pillion riding a scooter.
KL-2/P-6182 Ambassador Car driven by the 2nd respondent
in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down and he
sustained injuries including fracture of his left leg. He
approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of
Rs.3,67,000/-, and the Tribunal awarded only Rs.2,06,000/-.
According to the appellant, the compensation awarded is
excessive and hence this appeal.
3. The accident, injuries, and the policy of the
offending vehicle are not disputed by the appellant. But
according to them, the compensation of Rs.25,000/-
awarded towards pain and suffering is excessive and the
Tribunal ought not have awarded Rs.60,000/- towards loss
of earning power without any proof for permanent disability.
4. Though service was complete, respondents 1 to 3,
opted to remain absent, and none appeared for them in the
appeal.
5. Let us have a reappraisal of the facts and evidence
to find out whether any interference is called for in the
impugned award.
6. The appellant is challenging the compensation
awarded under the head 'pain and suffering' and 'loss of
earning power'. The 1st respondent had suffered type three
compound fracture of both bones of left leg and also on his
finger. He was hospitalised for ten days. Since there was
fracture of both bones of his left leg and there was
hospitalisation for ten days, Rs.25,000/- awarded towards
pain and suffering seems to be reasonable, and it need not
be interfered with.
7. Towards, loss of earning power, the 1st
respondent/claimant had not adduced any evidence to show
that he had suffered any disability affecting his earning
capacity. According to him, he was working as a Sales
Officer during the period of the accident. There is nothing to
show that he had to discontinue that job because of the
accident or he suffered any setback in his earning capacity.
So, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding Rs.60,000/-
towards loss of earning power, without any materials in
support. So, the impugned award is liable to be set aside to
the extent it awarded Rs.60,000/- towards loss of earning
power, and in all other respects, the award will remain.
8. It was submitted by the appellant that the entire
award amount was deposited by them before the Tribunal.
The 1st respondent/claimant was permitted to release 50%
of the award amount deposited, as per orders of this Court.
He is entitled to receive the balance in deposit, after
deducting Rs.60,000/- with proportionate interest thereon.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. No order as
to costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS,
JUDGE
DSV/24.08.2022
