Kerala High Court
Siraj vs Managing Director, Ksrtc on 3 January, 2022
MACA NO. 2651 OF 2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 13TH POUSHA, 1943
MACA NO. 2651 OF 2009
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(MV) 507/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN o.p(MV):
SIRAJ, S/O.ABDUL REHIMAN,
THAIVALAPPIL HOUSE, MALA-PLLIPPURAM DESOM, POYYA
VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DIST.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.V.BABY
SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.P (MV):
1 MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC
TRANSPORT CORPORATION, FORT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 THOMAS S/O. KOCHOUSEPH, KALLINGAL
HOUSE, PAZHOOKKARA, ANNALLUR VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPN.
SRI.JOY GEORGE, SC, K.S.R.T.C.
ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 2651 OF 2009
2
JUDGMENT
The appellant was the petitioner in O.P(MV)
No.507/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The respondents in the appeal
were the respondents before the Tribunal.
2. The appellant had filed the claim petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, claiming
compensation on account of the injuries that he sustained
in an accident on 27.8.2004. It was his case that, on the
abovesaid day, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing
No.KL.7/K 64 through Mala road, a bus bearing Reg.
No.KL-15/4154 (bus), driven by the 2nd respondent and
owned by the 1st respondent, hit the motorcycle of the
appellant. The appellant had sustained serious injuries
and he was treated as an inpatient for a period of 22 days
at the Kamaliya Hospital, Mala, Ernakulam Medical Centre,
Ernakulam and St.James Hospital, Chalakudy. The
MACA NO. 2651 OF 2009
appellant had sustained an ununited fracture of the middle
third of right tibia a head injury. The appellant was a
driver by profession and was earning a monthly income of
Rs.2,500/- plus allowances. Hence, the appellant claimed
a compensation of Rs.1,98,000/- from the respondents,
which claim was limited to Rs.1,00,000/-.
3. The respondents 1 and 2 had filed a joint written
statement admitting the accident, but denying that there
was negligence on the part of the 2 nd respondent. The
respondents also disputed the age, income and occupation
of the appellant.
4. The appellant had produced and marked Exts.A1
to A8 in evidence. The respondents did not let in any
evidence.
5. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and
materials on record, allowed the claim petition, in part, by
permitting the appellant to realise from the respondents an
amount of Rs.74,600/- with interest and costs.
MACA NO. 2651 OF 2009
6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner is in appeal.
7. Heard; Sri.P.V.Baby, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant/petitioner and Sri.Alex Antony,
the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent- the
owner of the bus.
8. The sole question that arises for consideration in
the appeal is whether quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is reasonable and just?
9. Ext.A2 charge-sheet filed by the Mala Police in
Crime No.302/2004 substantiates the fact that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2 nd
respondent. Admittedly, the 1st respondent was the owner
of the offending bus. The respondents have not let in any
evidence to discredit the Ext.A2. Therefore, the 1 st
respondent is vicariously liable to pay the compensation.
10. The appellant claimed that he was a driver by
profession and was earning a monthly income of
Rs.2,500/-. The Tribunal fixed the notional monthly
MACA NO. 2651 OF 2009
income of the appellant as pleaded in the claim petition.
Similarly, the appellant is held to be indisposed for a
period of four months, which was also accepted by the
Tribunal.
Bystander expenses and Extr-nourishment
11. The appellant has proved that he was treated as
an inpatient in three hospitals for a period of 22 days.
The Tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.2,200/-
towards 'bystander expenses', which according to me is too
meager.
12. Considering the fact that the appellant was
treated as an inpatient for a period of 22 days in the year
2004, I award the appellant bystander expenses at
Rs.250/- per day for a period of 22 days which works out to
Rs.5,500/-, i.e. an enhancement by a further amount of
Rs.3,300/-. Similarly, I award the appellant at Rs.150/- per
day for a period of 22 days towards 'extra-nourishment
expenses' which works out to Rs.3,300/-.
MACA NO. 2651 OF 2009
Pain and sufferings and Loss of amenities
13. The appellant had claimed Rs.20,000/- towards
pain and sufferings and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of
amenities. The Tribunal awarded an amount of
Rs.13,000/- and Rs.7,000/- respectively under the two
heads, which are on the lower side.
14. On a consideration of the injuries sustained by the
appellant, that he was was treated as an inpatient for a
period of 22 days, and that he was indisposed for a period
of four months, I hold that the appellant is entitled to an
enhancement of Rs.8000/- under the head 'pain and
sufferings' and Rs.3000/- under the head 'loss of
amenities'.
15. With respect to the other heads of compensation,
I find that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable and just
compensation.
In the result, the appeal is allowed, in part, by
enhancing the compensation by a further amount of
Rs.17,600/- (i.e an amount of Rs.3,300/-- towards
MACA NO. 2651 OF 2009
'bystander expenses', Rs.3,300/- towards 'extra
nourishment', Rs.8,000/- towards 'pain and sufferings' and
Rs.3,000/- towards 'loss of amenities' ). The 1st respondent
is ordered to deposit Rs.17,600/-with interest at the rate of
7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
deposit, after deducting the interest for a period of 38
days and as ordered by this Court on 19.3.2021 in
C.M.Appli. No.3124/2009, and a cost of Rs.5,000/- within a
period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of the judgment. Immediately on the enhanced
compensation being deposited, the Tribunal shall disburse
the deposited amount to the appellant in accordance with
law.
ma/03.01.2022 Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
/True copy/
