Dayanandan P.P vs T.V.Sundaram Iyengar
2022 Latest Caselaw 8229 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
   FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944
                   MACA NO. 2315 OF 2014
OPMV 2157/2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/S:

         DAYANANDAN P.P.
         AGED 41 YEARS
         S/O.LATE PURUSHOTHAMAN, PURATHUKADU PADINJARECHIRA
         HOUSE, KUMBALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM.
         BY ADVS.
         SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
         SMT.K.N.RAJANI
         SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.
         SMT.ANILA PETER
         SRI.SAJEN THAMPAN
         SRI.CAESAR V PILLA


RESPONDENT/S:

    1    T.V.SUNDARAM IYENGAR
         NANTHIYATTU BUILDING, COLLEGE JUNCTION,
         PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.
    2    JAYAN G.
         S/O.GOPALAN, PARANKIMAMVILA THEKKETHIL, CHOORAKODE
         P.O., ADOOR - 691 551.
    3    ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
         2ND FLOOR, AMRITHA TOWERS, KPCC JUNCTION,
         M.G.ROAD, COCHIN - 11.
         BY ADVS.
         SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
         SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.
OTHER PRESENT:

         PREETHY V NAIR - SC
     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA NO. 2315 OF 2014
                                 -2-




                             JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 1st day of July 2022)

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V) No.2157 of 2011 on the

files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam

is the appellant. The appellant filed the application under

Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming

compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The

appellant is a coolie worker. On 27.9.2011 at about 6.30

p.m., while he was pedaling a bicycle along the Ernakulam

- Alapuzha NH Road and when he stopped at the median

gap in front of Himalaya Bakery, Aroor for entering into

the western track of NH, a mini lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-

03/U 6526 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and

negligent manner, hit on the petitioner, as a result of which MACA NO. 2315 OF 2014

he fell down from the vehicle and sustained injuries. He

was taken to Lakeshore Hospital and from there to Medical

Trust Hospital, Ernakulam and treated there.

3. The first respondent is the owner of the mini lorry

and the 3rd respondent is the insurer. The appellant claimed

Rs.4,00,000/- as total compensation, which was

subsequently enhanced to Rs.9,00,000/-.

4. The 3rd respondent filed the written statement and

admitted the insurance policy as valid one, but disputed the

fact that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the mini lorry by the 2 nd respondent. It is

contended that the compensation claimed is highly

excessive and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Heard.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended MACA NO. 2315 OF 2014

that the Tribunal has failed to take the monthly income of

the appellant as Rs.6,000/-, but the took the same as

Rs.4,000/- per month. Moreover, under the head of loss of

amenities in life, though the appellant claimed Rs.60,000/-

nothing was granted.

       7.          Going   by    the   decision    reported   in

Ramachandrappa             v.   Manager,   Royal     Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Company Limited [2011 (13) SCC

236], the monthly income of the appellant to be taken is

Rs.8,000/- as the accident happened in the year 2011. But

the appellant has claimed only Rs.6,000/- as his monthly

income in the petition. So, I am inclined to take the

monthly income at Rs.6,000/-. Ext.C1 Certificate issued

from the Medical Board attached to the Medical College

Hospital, Alappuzha shows that that he has 40% disability MACA NO. 2315 OF 2014

i.e., 30% visual disability and 15% neurological disability.

The Tribunal has taken 40% as the permanent disability for

awarding compensation for permanent disability. Since the

appellant was aged 39 years, the multiplier to be taken is

15.

8. Taking the monthly income as Rs.6,000/-, the

compensation for permanent disability can be worked out

as Rs.6,000 x 12 x 15 x 40/100 = Rs.4,32,000/-. The

Tribunal has already awarded Rs.2,88,000/- towards the

said head.

9. As far as loss of income is concerned, taking the

monthly income as Rs.6,000/- per month, the loss of

earning for ten months would come to Rs.60,000/-. The

appellant was granted Rs.40,000/- under the head.

10. Under the head loss of amenities, the disability MACA NO. 2315 OF 2014

certificate shows that he had 40% disability in total (30%

visual disability + 15% neurological disability). The

appellant was aged 39 years and he lost vision of one of his

eyes. Hence, I am inclined to grant an amount of

Rs.50,000/- under the head loss of amenities, as against the

claim of Rs.60,000/-.

11. Accordingly, the following enhancements are made to the award passed by the Tribunal:

Sl.             Head of Claim         Amt. Awarded Amt. Enhanced
No.                                    by Tribunal in appeal (Rs.)
                                          (Rs.)
1.      Compensation for             2,88,000/-      4,32,000/-
        permanent disability
2.      Compensation for loss of          ...            50,000/-
        amenities
4.      Loss of earnings              40,000/-        60,000/-
        Total                       3,28,000/-      5,42,000/-

Amount enhanced - 5,42,000 - 3,28,000= 2,14,000/-.

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the Insurance Company shall pay interest for the amounts awarded by the MACA NO. 2315 OF 2014

Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award and for the enhanced amounts at the rate of 8% from the date of petition. If any amounts have already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. The claimants 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 furnished within the time stipulated, it is made clear that no interest shall run on the enhanced amount after the period stipulated by this Court.

sd BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE dl/