Kerala High Court
Balan vs Shimjith on 3 June, 2022
M.A.C.A.332/2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1944
MACA NO. 332 OF 2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 1424/2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:
BALAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.CHANDUKUTTY, VELLARAMCHALIL
HOUSE, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE, NOW RESIDING AT
PANNIKKOTTUVAYAL HOUSE, THALAKULATHUR, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SHIMJITH, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.SURENDRAN,
PANNIKKOTTUVAYAL HOUSE, THALAKULATHUR (P.O.), KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT. 673001
2 ABDUL RADHEED, S/O.ABDUL ALI, JALALIA HOUSE,
MANGALASSERY (P.O.), MALAPPURAM. (DEAD)676505
3 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD
DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.1, PB NO.533, WHITELINES, KALLAI
ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 673004
4 SAKKEENA, W/O.(LATE) ABDUL RASHEED, JALALIA HOUSE,
MANGALASSERY (PO), MALAPPURAM.676505
5 ABDUL ALI, AGED 58 YEARS
JALALIA HOUSE, MANGALASSERY (PO), MALAPPURAM.676505
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR
M.A.C.A.332/2012
2
SRI.K.KESAVANKUTTY
SRI.V.SHYAM
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.332/2012
3
C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
----------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.332 of 2012
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2022
J U D G M E N T
1. In this appeal, appellant/claimant challenges
the award dated 12.04.2010 in O.P.(M.V.)1424 of 2008 of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode.
Petitioner is the victim of the accident, which took
place on 04.01.2008 and he was a 55 year old male,
working as a Welder, at the relevant time. On various
heads, the Tribunal granted a total sum of Rs.17,332/-
together with interest.
2. The award is assailed essentially on the
following grounds:
First ground is regarding the monthly income of the
claimant. Rs.6,000/- was sought for, whereas Rs.2,500/-
was given. There is no quarrel that the
petitioner/appellant had not adduced any proof regarding
the income. Going by the index in Ramachandrappa v.
M.A.C.A.332/2012
Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.
[2011 KHC 784], Rs.6,000/- is the notional income
pertaining to the year 2008. This Court, therefore,
reckons the notional income at Rs.6,000/- per month.
3. The second ground is with respect to the
inpatient treatment, which was undergone after the
impugned award. Learned counsel pointed out that,
Annexures-A1, A2, A3 certificates are produced, which
indicated that the appellant was treated as an inpatient
for 11 days, 9 days and 5 days respectively, after the
award was passed. He was treated at Government Beach
Hopsital, Kozhikode. He claims bystander expenses for
the said period, totalling to 25 days. It appears that
the claim raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant is reasonable and therefore, he is entitled to
Rs.300/- per day towards bystander expenses for 25 days.
4. The next aspect assailed is loss of earning
reckoned by the Tribunal, which is only to 1½ months.
Learned counsel pointed out that, accident took place on
M.A.C.A.332/2012
04.01.2008 and going by the records, he was last treated
on November 2011. It could thus be seen that the
appellant was treated for more than three years.
However, it has to be reckoned that the entire period of
treatment cannot be taken into account for the purpose
of ascertaining the loss of earning. This Court takes
note that, pursuant to the award, appellant was treated
as an inpatient for 25 days. In such circumstance, loss
of earnings for a further period of 1½ months would not
be unreasonable. Therefore, loss of earning is reckoned
for a total period of 3 months.
5. As regards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- alone
was granted by the Tribunal, which, according to the
learned counsel for the Tribual is grossly insufficient.
Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to
paragraph 9 of the impugned award, wherein the fact that
the petitioner suffered fracture on both bones of right
leg and that, he had pain all over the body is recorded.
It appears that, petitioner's claim is reasonable and
M.A.C.A.332/2012
therefore, he is entitled for an additional sum of
Rs.7500/-, thus totalling the amount under the head
'pain and suffering' to Rs.17,500/-, as against
Rs.25,000/- claimed. Extra nourishment is granted at
Rs.300/-, which is liable to be enhanced to Rs.1,000/-
at a reasonable estimation. Similarly, transportation
charges is reckoned only at Rs.300/-, which also is
liable to be enhanced to Rs.1,000/-. In the
circumstances, this appeal is allowed and the appellant
is entitled to a total sum of Rs.30,050/- as detailed
below.
Sl. Head of Claim Amount Total amount after
No. awarded by enhancement in
the Tribunal appeal
1 Transport 300 1000
2 Extra Nourishment 300 1000
3 Loss of earnings 3750 18000 (6000x3)
4 Bystander's expenses 600 7500 (25x300)
6 Pain and Suffering 10000 17500
M.A.C.A.332/2012
7 Loss of amenities 2000 2000
Total 17,332 47,382
Amount enhanced = 47,382/ - 17,332/ = Rs.30,050/-
6. The Insurance Company shall pay interest for the
amounts awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in
the impugned award and for the enhanced amount, at the
rate of 5% from the date of petition. However, the
appellant/claimant will not be entitled to any interest
for the delayed period of 545 days as stipulated in the
order dated 27.02.2012 in C.M.A.No.433 of 2012 in the
above appeal. If any amounts have already been paid, the
same shall be granted set off. The claimant shall
produce the details of the Bank account before the
Insurance Company/Tribunal within two months 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
M.A.C.A.332/2012
thereafter. If the Bank account is not given within the
time stipulated, it is made clear that, no interest
shall run on the enhanced amount after the period
stipulated by this Court. However, if the Insurance
Company fails to deposit the amount, as directed,
interest on the enhanced amount shall also run at the
rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of petition.
The appeal is allowed to the above extent.
Sd/-
C.JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sbna/
