Royal Sundaram Alliance ... vs Anesh K
2022 Latest Caselaw 9035 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
       THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
  WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1944
                   MACA NO. 1167 OF 2016
 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 26.11.2015 IN OPMV NO.470/2013 OF
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - III, KASARAGOD
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:

         ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
         NOW REPRESENTED BY THEIR ZONAL HEAD,
         SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING,
         CLUB HOUSE ROAD,
         ANNASALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002.

         BY ADVS.
         SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
         SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2
    1     ANESH K.
          S/O. DAMODHARAN,
          VANIYANVALAPPIL HOUSE,
          CHEEMENI P. O., VIA CHERUVATHUR,
          HOSDURG TALUK,
          PIN - 671 313.
    2     ABDUL SALAM
          S/O. ABDULLA M.,
          HOUSE NO.27/VI, PATTOLI,
          PETTIKUNDU P. O.,
          CHEEMENI, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 313.
    3     MADHU A.
          S/O. KARTHIYAYANI,
          AVARONAM HOUSE, PETTIKUNDU P. O.,
          KAYOOR, CHEEMENI GP,
          KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 313.

         BY ADVS.
         R1 - SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR
         SRI.RAHUL SASI
         SMT.NEETHU PREM
     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA NO.1167 OF 2016

                                2




                           JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the 3 rd respondent

Insurance Company in OP (M.V) No.470 of 2013 on the

file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - III,

Kasaragod. The parties in this appeal are referred to as

per their status in the claim petition.

2. According to the petitioner, on 01.05.2012,

while he was travelling in a car driven by the 1 st

respondent, the car hit on a lorry and the petitioner

sustained serious injuries. The petitioner claimed an

amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the

injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal awarded

an amount of Rs.9,78,669/- as compensation with 8%

interest per annum from the date of petition till the date

of deposit of the award amount with proportionate costs.

3. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation,

the Insurance Company has filed this appeal. MACA NO.1167 OF 2016

4. The main contention of the insurer before this

Court is that the Tribunal, after awarding an amount of

Rs.1,20,960/- as compensation for continuing

permanent disability, awarded a further amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of earning power which,

would lead to duplication of compensation.

5. The petitioner is a barber. He was aged 30

years at the time of the accident. Ext.X1 disability

certificate issued by the Medical Board would show that

the petitioner has sustained permanent locomotor

disability of 18% in relation to left upper limb. The

Medical Board assessed the whole body permanent

disability of the petitioner as 1%. The Tribunal fixed the

whole body permanent disability of the petitioner as 8%

for the purpose of computing the compensation under

permanent disability. The Tribunal has noted that the

petitioner has got partially restricted range movements

of left elbow (supination - pronation etc), movements of

left wrist minimally affected, the co-ordinated activity of MACA NO.1167 OF 2016

left upper limb (lifting object over head removing and

placing the same time), partially affected the left hand

grip and pinch strength.

6. The petitioner being a barber by profession,

the functional disability will be more than what has been

assessed as whole body disability by the Medical Board.

Though the petitioner has claimed an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, only an

amount of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded by the

Tribunal under the said head. Eventhough the petitioner

has not preferred any appeal against the award of the

Tribunal, to arrive at a just and reasonable

compensation, I find that the petitioner is entitled for an

amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for loss

of amenities of life. On deducting the amount of

Rs.50,000/- already awarded, the petitioner will be

entitled for an enhanced amount of Rs.50,000/-

towards loss of amenities of life.

7. Towards pain and suffering, the petitioner has MACA NO.1167 OF 2016

been awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Taking note of

the injuries sustained by the petitioner, I find that an

amount of Rs.70,000/- would be just and reasonable

compensation under the said head. Therefore, the

petitioner will be entitled for an enhanced amount of

Rs.20,000/- (70,000-50,000) towards pain and

suffering.

8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for

the appellant that when the petitioner has been awarded

compensation for continuing permanent disability, he is

not entitled for compensation under the head loss of

earning power. Therefore, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-

awarded under the head loss of earning power to be

deducted from the total compensation.

9. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for only

an amount of Rs.9,48,669/- (9,78,669 + 50,000

+20,000 - 1,00,000) as total compensation instead of

Rs.9,78,669/-.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the MACA NO.1167 OF 2016

appellant - Insurance Company that pursuant to order

dated 26.05.2016 of this Court the appellant has

deposited 75% of the amount awarded as compensation

and the petitioner has withdrawn the amount. The

appellant shall deposit the balance amount in terms of

this judgment with 8% interest per annum from the date

of the petition till realisation and costs, within a period of

two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

The appeal is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

SPR