Balakrishnan Nair vs Shahida Sheikh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6137 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
     WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                         MACA NO. 2327 OF 2014
AWARD DATED 18.03.2014 IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.973/2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
                      CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

             BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
             AGED 61 YEARS
             S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR,
             3/910 B, SREEVALSAM,
             K.K.RAOD,
             THRIKKAKARA P.O.
             COCHIN-682 021.

             BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
                     SMT.ANILA PETER
                     SMT.C.PRABITHA
                     SMT.K.N.RAJANI
                     SRI.P.VISWANATHA MENON
                     SRI.J.VIVEK GEORGE
                     C.CHANDRASEKHARAN


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1        SHAHIDA SHEIKH
             W/O.SHEIK AHAMED, 10/90,
             KALLIKATTUKARA HOUSE,
             NEAR T.V.CENTER,
             KAKKANAD KARA,
             KAKKANAD VILLAGE,
             ERNAKULAM - 682 030.

    2        BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
             M.G.ROAD,
             KOCHI-682 030.

             R1 BY ADVS.SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN
                        SRI.T.R.RENJITH
             R2 BY SRI.R.AJITH KUMAR (128/84)



     THIS    MOTOR   ACCIDENT   CLAIMS     APPEAL   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 M.A.C.A.No.2327 OF 2014          2




                            JUDGMENT

Petitioner in O.P. (M.V.) No. 973/2010 on the file

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam is

the appellant in this matter and he assails award dated

18.03.2014 in the above case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant,

Adv. C. Chandrasekharan and Adv. R. Ajitkumar

Varma, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance

Company.

3. Summary of the case :-

The appellant who met with an accident on

03.11.2009, at about 09.15 A.M., while travelling on his

motor bike had preferred claim under Section 166(1) of

the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal claiming

compensation of Rs. 20 Lakh. According to the

appellant, the first respondent who had driven Maruti

Car bearing Registration No. KL-07/AU-476

contributed the accident.

4. The first respondent filed written statement

and disputed the accident as well as negligence. The

quantum of compensation also disputed.

5. The second respondent, Insurance Company

also disputed the accident, negligence as well as

compensation claimed under various heads while

admitting policy.

6. The court below marked Exts.A1 to A8 on the

part of the appellant and B1 to B3 on the part of the

respondents. Ext.C1 disability certificate also got

marked as court exhibit. Thereafter, Tribunal granted

Rs. 10,81,976/- as compensation against claim of Rs. 20

Lakhs.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant pressed

for granting more compensation pointing out the fact

that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is on

lower side. The learned counsel for the Insurance

Company opposed enhancement.

8. In this matter, as per Ext.B3 copy of driving

license produced by the Insurance Company, the age of

the appellant was 61, at the time of accident.

Accordingly, the court below fixed multiplier as 7.

Similarly, the court below fixed monthly income at

Rs. 4,000/-, considering the fact that the appellant was a

retired bank employee getting pension.

9. Following the ratio in [(2011) 13 SCC 236],

Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., Rs. 7,000/- fixed

as monthly income, in this matter, considering that the

accident was of the year 2009. Therefore, the award

granted by the Tribunal requires recalculation.

Accordingly, the 'loss of earnings' in this case would

come to Rs.7,000 x 10 = Rs.70,000/-, out of which

Rs.40,000/- granted by the Tribunal, the balance

Rs.30,000/- more is granted under this head.

10. Disability Income shall be

Rs.7,000x12x36.6/100x7 = Rs.2,15,208/-, out of which

Rs.1,22,976/- already granted by the Tribunal and

Rs.92,232/- is the balance. Therefore, under the head

'disability income' Rs.92,232/- more is granted.

11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

appellant that no amount granted under the head 'loss of

amenities', though the appellant sustained left temporal

contusion, midbrain contusion, diffuse brain injury,

multiple skull base fracture, lung contusion,

hemothorax, multiple rib fracture and scapula fracture.

Further he had undergone decompressive craniectomy,

elective ventilation and supportive care. He had also

significant deficits of cogination, memory, speech and is

right hermiparetic. Submission appears to be

convincing. Therefore, I grant Rs.30,000/- under the

head 'loss of amenities' also.

12. In the result, this appeal is allowed. It is

ordered that the appellant is entitled to get enhanced

compensation to the tune of Rs.1,52,232/- (Rupees One

Lakh Fifty Two Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Two

only) with the same rate of interest awarded by the

Tribunal, excluding the amount already granted by the

Tribunal, from the date of petition till the date of deposit

or realisation.

13. The insurance company is directed to deposit

the balance amount in the name of the appellant within

two months from today and on deposit, the appellant

can release the same. Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE DCS/01.06.2022