Kerala High Court
Prakash L vs The Divisional Manager 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. 1910 OF 2018
OP(MV) 237/2012 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & MOTOR
ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-III, PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
PRAKASH L,
S/O. LAKSHMANA PANICKER, KAILAS, MUTHOOR P.O.,
THIRUVALLA.
BY ADV SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH
RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY
LTD., SUNDARAM TOWERS, 46, WHITES ROAD,
ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI - 600014.
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.06.2022, THE COURT ON 01.07.2022
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NO.1910 OF 2018 2
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the claimant in O.P.
(MV)No.237 of 2012 on the files of the Additional District Judge &
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-III, Pathanamthitta.
2. The appellant met with a road traffic accident on 31.01.2012
at 11.30 a.m. While he was travelling in a car, another car bearing
Registration No. KL-03/S-6582 dashed against the car, in which he was
travelling and he sustained serious injuries.
3. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
the offending car by the 1st respondent, who was the owner cum driver
and the 2nd respondent was its insurer.
4. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A25 were marked before
the Tribunal and no evidence was adduced from the side of
respondents. On analysing the facts and evidence, the Tribunal
awarded compensation of Rs.7,22,040/- against his claim of
Rs.44,65,000/-. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, he has
come up with this appeal.
5. Now the point to be considered is whether there is any
illegality or impropriety in the award passed by the Tribunal warranting
interference by this Court.
6. Learned counsel Sri.A.N.Santhosh appearing for the appellant
submitted that the appellant was a businessman earning monthly
income of Rs.35,000/- per month. He was aged only 49 years at the
time of the accident. He suffered 20% disability going by the Medical
Certificate. But the actual disability suffered by him was much more.
He was undergoing various types of treatments for about two years
from the date of the accident, and even now, he is not able to drive a
vehicle, because of Radial Nerve Palsy, and it has adversely affected his
business prospects. Though he was a businessman, the learned
Tribunal fixed his notional income @ Rs.6,000/- per month, which is
too low when compared to his actual income. Learned counsel for the
appellant, pointed out that going by the decision Ramachandrappa v.
Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited
[AIR 2011 SC 2951], in the year 2012, notional income for a
vegetable vendor was fixed @ Rs.8500/-. Since the appellant was a
businessman, which is proved through documents, he was eligible to
get his notional income fixed more than Rs.6,000/-. It is true that even
after the accident, he was continuing his business activities as seen
from Ext.A23 Income Tax Returns. Considering all these facts, his
notional income could be fixed @ Rs.9,500/- per month. Learned
Tribunal assessed his loss of earnings for a period of six months only.
There is evidence to show that he was on continued treatment for
about two years involving hospitalisation and still he is suffering from
Radial Nerve Palsy. So loss of earnings can be calculated at least for
nine months considering the nature of injuries and period of treatment
undergone. So loss of earnings can be assessed as Rs.85,500/- (9500
X 9). He was already awarded Rs36,000/-. So he is entitled to get the
balance amount of Rs.49,500/- under the head 'loss of earnings'.
7. Towards compensation for permanent disability of 20%, the
Tribunal assessed compensation of Rs.1,87,200/- taking his monthly
income @ Rs.6,000/- per month. Since, we have fixed his notional
income at Rs.9,500/-, the compensation for permanent disability can
be computed as Rs.2,96,400/- (9500X12X13X20/100). The Tribunal
awarded Rs.1,87,200/-. So he is entitled to get the balance amount of
Rs.1,09,200/- towards enhanced compensation for permanent
disability.
8. Towards loss of amenities, he was given Rs.50,000/- only.
According to the appellant, as he suffered Radial Nerve Palsy, he is not
able to drive a vehicle and that is affecting his business to a great
extent. Considering the nature of injuries, and 20% disability he had
suffered with Radial Nerve Palsy, an addition of Rs.25,000/- towards
loss of amenities is justifiable. So Rs.25,000/- more is awarded
towards loss of amenities.
9. In all other counts, the compensation awarded seems to be
reasonable and it requires no enhancement.
10. In the result, the appellant is entitled to get additional
compensation of Rs.1,83,700/-(49,500 +1,09,200+25,000).
11. The respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation 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/25.06.2022
