Sivakumar vs Sunil
2022 Latest Caselaw 2170 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
  THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1943
                     MACA NO. 881 OF 2016
 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 25.04.2015 IN OPMV 675/2011 OF MOTOR
              ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

          SIVAKUMAR
          AGED 45 YEARS
          S/O.KASAPPAN, AGED 45 YEARS, KALLAMKADU, PATTANCHERRY
          P.O., CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
          BY ADV SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1     SUNIL
          S/O.P.M.VASU, AGED 42 YEARS, PUTHANPULLY VEEDU,
          PANAYOOR P.O., ATHIKKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 678 103.
    2     BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
          1ST FLOOR, MANGALAM TOWERS, OPPOSITE TOWN BUS STAND,
          T.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD-678108.
    3     RAMAKRISHNAN
          AGED NOT KNOWN, ARIVAZHAKAN, OLD NO.2/122, NEW
          NO.2/23, ERUMANAYAKANPATTI, PALANI TALUK, DINDIGAL,
          TAMIL NADU-600105.
    4     BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
          GE PLAZA, AIRPORT ROAD, YERWADA, PUNE, MAHARASTRA,
          411006.
    5     K.T.SALINI
          W/O.SAJEESH KUMAR, AGE NOT KNOWN, MANNATHU VEEDU,
          VASUDEVA NAGAR, ROBINSON ROAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-
          678103.
    6     M.K.SIVANKUTTY
          AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, MANNATHU VEEDU,
          VASUDEVA NAGAR, ROBINSON ROAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-
          678103 .
    7     SATHYABHAMA
          W/O.M.K.SIVANKUTTY, MANNATHU VEEDU, VASUDEVA NAGAR,
          ROBINSON ROAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678103 .
    8     ADHITHYAN
          S/O.SAJEESH KUMAR, AGE NOT KNOWN (MINOR) REPRESENTED
          BY NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN MOTHER K T SALINI,
          MANNATHU VEEDU, VASUDEVA NAGAR, ROBINSON ROAD,
          PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678103.
 MACA NO. 881 OF 2016
                                   2

    9        S.ARYANANDHA
             D/O.SAJEESH KUMAR, AGE NOT KNOWN (MINOR), REPRESENTED
             BY NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN MOTHER K.T.SALINI,
             MANNATHU VEEDU, VASUDEVA NAGAR, ROBINSON ROAD,
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678103.

             BY ADV SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB


     THIS    MOTOR   ACCIDENT   CLAIMS   APPEAL   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 MACA NO. 881 OF 2016
                                    3

                      K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J
            ------------------------------------------------
                      M.A.C.A.No. 881 of 2016
           --------------------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2022

                              JUDGMENT

The appellant is claiming enhancement of compensation

awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant is 40 years old, who suffered

an injury in a motor vehicle accident in the year 2011. The appellant

was assessed with 6% disability by a Medical Board. The Tribunal

adopted Rs.3500/- as the notional income and granted a lumpsum

compensation of Rs.45,000/- for compensation for disability.

2. The appellant is entitled to compensation for disability,

since he has been assessed with 6% disability by a Medical Board.

The notional income has to be computed at Rs.8,000/-, as applicable

for a coolie, as has been decided in Ramachandrappa v. Manager,

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. : (2011) 13

SCC 236 in the year 2011. Loss of earnings hence would stand

enhanced to Rs.24,000/-. Compensation for disability would be

Rs.86,400/- (8000x12x15x6%). From the said amount, Rs.45,000/-

granted as loss of amenities/disability would be deducted. Hence the

enhanced amount would be Rs.41,400/-. A nominal amount of

Rs.10,000/- is granted under the head loss of amenities. The total

enhanced compensation on loss of earnings (Rs.13,500/-), MACA NO. 881 OF 2016

compensation for disability (Rs.41,400/-) and loss of amenities

(Rs.10,000/-) will come to Rs.64,900/-. The enhanced compensation

would be rounded to Rs.65,000/-.

3. The Insurance Company shall pay interest for the amounts

awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award

and for the enhanced amounts at the rate of 5% from the date of

petition. Since there was a delay of 124 days in filing the appeal,

interest on the enhanced quantum would not run for the said period.

If any amounts have already been paid, the same shall be granted set

off. The claimant(s) shall produce the details of the Bank account

before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within one month from the

date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and amount shall

be transferred to the Bank account directly through NEFT/RTGS mode

within a period of one month thereafter. If the Bank account is not

given within the time stipulated, it is made clear that no interest shall

run on the enhanced amount after the period stipulated by this Court.

However, if the Insurance Company fails to deposit the amount as

directed, interest on the enhanced amount shall also run at the rate

ordered by the Tribunal from the date of petition.

The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE lsn MACA NO. 881 OF 2016