Kerala High Court
Thankamani P.K vs National Insurance Co.Ltd on 31 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 9TH BHADRA, 1944
MACA NO. 1020 OF 2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 1403/2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
THANKAMANI P.K.
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O.P.V LATE SASIDHARAN, WEAVERS STREET, KARIVELLUR
P.O, KARIVELLUR VILLAGE, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR
DISTRICT
BY ADV SRI.M.V.AMARESAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.3:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
FIRST FLOOR, PERUMAL BUILDING, PERUMBA, PAYYANNUR
670307
BY ADV.
SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 26.08.2022, THE COURT ON 31.08.2022 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA No.1020 of 2012 2
SOPHY THOMAS, J.
------------------------------------
M.A.C.A No.1020 of 2012
------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of August, 2022
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the claimant in OP (MV)
No.1403 of 2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Thalassery, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal.
2. The appellant was a 45 year old lady and she met with a
road traffic accident on 07.07.2007 while she was walking through
the side of National Highway at Karivellur. KL-13L/3253 jeep driven
by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked her
down and she sustained injuries. She was rushed to Government
Hosptal, Karivellur and from there she was referred to Thejaswini
Hospital, Mangalore. Even after discharge, she was continuing her
treatment. She approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of
Rs.1,50,000/-, but the Tribunal awarded only Rs.79,500/- and that
is under challenge.
3. The 1st respondent was the driver, 2nd respondent was the
owner and 3rd respondent was the insurer of the offending vehicle.
4. The accident, injuries and the policy of the offending
vehicle are not disputed by the insurer and so, the appeal is directed
only against the insurer.
5. Now let us see whether any interference is warranted in the
impugned award.
6. According to the appellant, she was a Sweeper in KSEB
getting daily wages of Rs.25/-. After her sweeping work, she used
to supply food items and she was earning additional income of
Rs.150/- per day. Even then the Tribunal took her notional income
as Rs.3,000/-. Going by Ramchandrappa vs. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited (AIR 2011 SC
2951), since the accident was in the year 2007, she was eligible to
get her notional income fixed at Rs.4,500/-. The Tribunal
considered loss of earning for four months. But, according to the
appellant, she was hospitalised for 14 days, and even after
discharge, she was continuing her treatment. Implants were
removed only in the year 2009. So, according to her, for about one
year, she lost her earning and the Tribunal failed to note that fact.
7. The appellant suffered bimalleolar fracture of left ankle with
displacement. She had undergone ORIF in 2007 and she was re-
admitted for implant removal in the year 2009. Considering these
facts, this Court is inclined to award loss of earning for eight months
@ Rs.4,500/- which will come to Rs.36,000/-. She was already
awarded Rs.12,000/- towards loss of earning. So, she is entitled to
get the balance Rs.24,000/- towards enhanced compensation for
loss of earning.
8. Towards bystander expenses, she was given only Rs.100/-
per day for 14 days of hospitalisation. Since the accident was in the
year 2007, she was eligible to get minimum of Rs.200/- per day,
and so Rs.1,400/- is awarded towards enhanced compensation for
bystander expenses.
9. For pain and sufferings, the claim of the appellant was
Rs.20,000/-, but the Tribunal awarded only Rs.16,000/-.
Considering the nature of injury, the period of hospitalisation and
the procedures she had undergone including open reduction and
internal fixation, implant removal etc., this Court is inclined to award
Rs.20,000/- and so, she is eligible to get the balance Rs.4,000/- as
enhanced compensation for pain and sufferings.
10. Towards loss of amenities, the appellant was awarded only
Rs.3,000/-. It is true that, she had not suffered any permanent
disability due to the accident. Even then, as she had suffered
fracture of left ankle with displacement and her treatment took
more than one year, this Court is inclined to award Rs.2,000/- more,
as enhanced compensation under the head loss of amenities.
11. The compensation awarded under all other heads seems
to be 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.12,000/- Rs.36,000/- Rs.24,000/-
earning
Bystander Rs.1,400/- Rs.2,800/- Rs.1,400/-
expenses
Pain and Rs.16,000/- Rs.20,000/- Rs.4,000/-
sufferings
Loss of Rs.3,000/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,000/-
amenities
Total Rs.32,400/- Rs.63,800/- Rs.31,400/-
12. In the result, the appellant is entitled to get Rs.31,400/-
(24000+1400+4000+2000) as enhanced compensation.
The 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 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
