Kerala High Court
P.Nimesh vs K.Satheesan on 1 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944
MACA NO. 699 OF 2017
OP(MV) NO.666 OF 2013 ON THE FILES OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY
APPELLANT/PETITINOER:
P.NIMESH,
S/O.MANOHARAN, AGED 23 YEARS, BUS CLEANER, NIMESH
NIVAS, POROLAM, KUTTYATOOR AMSOM, PAZHASSI DESOM,
P.O. KUTTYATTOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 602.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS
SRI.T.T.RAKESH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 K.SATHEESAN,
S/O.KUNHAPPA NAIR, AGED 43 YEARS,PARETH HOUSE, P.O.
EACHUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. (DRIVER OF THE
LORRY NO.13-J-1877).
2 PRIYA K,
W/O.SATHEESAN.K, PARETH HOUSE, KUDUKKIMOTTA, MUNDERI,
G.P.,P.O., EACHUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. (OWNER OF THE PICK
UP VAN NO.-13-J-1877).
3 SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR,
RAJASTHAN, PIN - 302 022(INSURER).
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)
SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.
SRI.E.MOHAMMED SHAFI
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.699 OF 2017 2
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the petitioner in OP(MV)
No.666 of 2013 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Thalassery, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded
under various heads.
2. The appellant met with a road traffic accident on
03.03.2013 at 12:30 p.m. While he was riding a motorcycle, KL-
13/J-1877 lorry driven by the 1st respondent and owned by the 2nd
respondent dashed against his motorbike and he was thrown down
and he sustained grievous injuries.
3. The 3rd respondent was the Insurer of the offending lorry,
and that vehicle was validly insured with the 3 rd respondent at the
time of incident.
4. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.73,350/-
against his claim of Rs.5,00,000/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded under various heads, he has come up with
this appeal.
5. What needs to be considered here is whether there is any
illegality or impropriety in the award of the Tribunal, which requires
interference by this Court.
6. In the accident, the appellant sustained the following
injuries:
(i) Tenderness and swelling right wrist.
(ii) Total amputation of left little finger.
(iii) Lacerated wound over left middle finger.
(iv) Multiple Aberration on left hand, left knee and right wrist.
He was hospitalised for ten days. He was a bus cleaner aged 23 at
the time of accident. The Tribunal fixed his notional income @
Rs.7,000/- and loss of earning was taken into account only for one
month. According to the appellant, even going by the decision
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951], his notional
income could have been fixed @ Rs.9,000/- per month and
considering the nature of injuries suffered, especially amputation of
his left little finger, he was not able to resume work at least for
three months. Going by Ramachandrappa's case, his notional
income can be fixed @ Rs.9,000/- per month. Considering the fact
that he was a bus cleaner and his left little finger was amputated,
the period of absence from duty can be taken as two months. So
the compensation for loss of earning could be fixed as Rs.18,000/-
(9,000x2). He was already paid Rs.7,000/-. So he is entitled to get
the balance amount of Rs.11,000/- under that head.
7. Towards extra nourishment, he was given only Rs.2,000/-.
Considering the fact that, he was hospitalised for ten days and was
not able to go for any job for two months, Rs.1,000/- more can be
given towards extra nourishment.
8. Towards bystander expenses nothing was seen awarded
by the Tribunal. Since he was hospitalised for ten days and his left
little finger was amputated, towards bystander expenses Rs.300/-
per day for the period of hospitalisation is justifiable. So he is
entitled to get Rs.3,000/- (300x10) under that head.
9. Towards pain and suffering, he was given only Rs.10,000/-
According to him, he was entitled to get Rs.35,000/- towards pain
and suffering as his left little finger was amputated. Considering
the nature of injuries sustained by him, Rs.15,000/- more can be
awarded towards pain and sufferings.
10. Towards loss of amenities, no amount was awarded by the
Tribunal. In the accident, he lost his left little finger for ever, and he
was aged only 23 at the time of accident. The disfiguration as well
as the loss of amenities are concerned, Rs.25,000/- will be a
reasonable compensation under the head 'loss of amenities'.
11. In all other counts, the compensation awarded seems to
be reasonable and it requires no enhancement.
12. In the result, the appellant is entitled to get enhanced
compensation of Rs.55,000/- (11,000 + 1,000 + 3,000 + 15,000 +
25,000).
13. The 3rd respondent insurer is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation of Rs.55,000/- in the Bank account of the
appellant with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of petition till
the date of deposit, 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.
The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS,
JUDGE
DSV/02.07.2022
