Sajeendran Nair vs Varghese
2022 Latest Caselaw 6263 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
   FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                  M.A.C.A. NO.1106 OF 2018
   (AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 24.02.2018 IN OPMV 663/2014 OF
   ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA)


APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

          SAJEENDRAN NAIR, AGED 47 YEARS,
          S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, USHA BHAVAN,
          CHATHIYARA MURI, THAMARAKULAM VILLAGE.
          BY ADVS.
          SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
          SRI.ARUN BOSE
          SRI.B.BIPIN
          SRI.R.REJI
          SMT.THARA THAMBAN


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:

    1     VARGHESE,
          S/O.PHILIPOSE, KANNEMPALLIL,
          VETTIKODU, KATTANAM, MAVELIKARA - 690 505.
    2     MUHAMMED KUNJU,
          SHALIMAR, ELIPPAKULAM P.O.,
          MAVELIKARA, PIN - 690 503.
    3     THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
          KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
          BY ADV SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR, SC,
          UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY.



     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA No.1106/2018

                                   2




                               JUDGMENT

(Dated :3rd June, 2022)

Aggrieved by the amount of compensation

awarded in O.P.(MV)No.663 of 2014 on the file of

the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Mavelikara, this appeal is filed by the claimant.

2. On 13.03.2014, at 2.00 p.m., the

petitioner was riding a scooter bearing

Reg.No.Kl-31/E-2405 along Kattanam Meppallikutti

road and when he reached Meppallikutti, he was

knocked down by a goods autorickshaw bearing

Reg.No.KL-31/C-5849, which came from behind and

thereby he sustained serious injuries. The

autorickshaw was driven by the 1st respondent and

the accident happened due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the goods

autorickshaw. The 2nd respondent is the owner of

the goods autorickshaw and the 3rd respondent is MACA No.1106/2018

the insurer. The petitioner claimed Rs.2,00,000/-

as compensation.

3. The 1st and 2nd respondents were set

ex-parte. The 3rd respondent insurance company

filed written statement contending that the

autorickshaw involved in the accident did not have

a valid insurance policy at the time of the

accident. The alleged accident happened due to the

negligence on the part of the 1st respondent was

denied.

4. On the side of the petitioner,

Exts.A1 to A9 documents were produced and marked.

There was no documentary evidence on the side of

the respondents. Ext.X1 disability certificate was

marked. The tribunal on a consideration of the

entire aspects of the case awarded a sum of

Rs.1,19,842/- towards the claim amount of

Rs.2,00,000/-.

MACA No.1106/2018

5. The appeal is filed challenging the

quantum, mainly regarding the notional income that

was taken by the Tribunal. It is seen that the

Tribunal has taken notional income of the

petitioner as Rs.5,000/-, but in the claim it was

Rs.10,000/-. Relying on the decision reported in

Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance

Insurance Company Limited [2011 (13) SCC 236], the

accident which happened in the year 2014,

Rs.9,500/- was taken as notional income. As far as

the permanent disability is concerned, the

Tribunal has assessed 11% permanent disability

evidencing the medical certificate issued by the

Govt.Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha, which

was constituted by the Medical Board. The Tribunal

has reduced the same to 6%, for the reason that

the doctor who issued the medical certificate was

not examined to prove the same. In the decision MACA No.1106/2018

reported in Karunakaran v. Abdul Rasheed [2015(4)

KLT 465], it is held that, when the disability

certificate issued by the Medical Board, the court

below was not justified in rejecting the same, for

the reason that the doctor who issued the

certificate was not examined. Relying on the said

decision, the disability certificate issued by the

Medical Board evidencing 11% disability is

accepted.

          6.    The        learned     counsel       for    the

petitioner     also        contended   that,       though   the

petitioner had to undergo complete rest for 5

months, the loss of earning is granted only for

three months. Taking into consideration of the

injuries sustained, I am of the opinion that the

petitioner had taken bed rest for 5 months without

any earning, hence the loss of earnings can be

worked out to Rs.9,500 x 5 - 15,000(amount already MACA No.1106/2018

granted) = 32,500/-. For pain and suffering, the

Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-; considering the

injury sustained, I enhance the same by

Rs.10,000/- more on that head. Regarding the

disability income, since the petitioner was aged

46 years, the multiplier to be taken is 13 and the

income taken as Rs.9,500/- per month. Hence the

amount calculated would be 9,500 x 12 x 13 x 11 /

100 = 1,63,020/-. The court below has awarded

Rs.46,800/- under the head disability income. The

balance amount would come to Rs.1,16,220/-. So the

total compensation would come to Rs.1,58,720/-.

Resultantly, appeal is partly allowed and the

petitioner is entitled to the enhanced

compensation of Rs.1,58,720/- with 7% interest

from the date of the award till realisation.

Sd/-

BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE ss