Kerala High Court
Jayalakshmi vs The Managing Director on 17 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1944
MACA NO. 141 OF 2013
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 03.11.2011 IN OPMV 2722/2005 OF IST
ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANTS/SUPPL.PETITIONERS 2 TO 4 IN OP (MV):
1 JAYALAKSHMI
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O.DEVADAS, NEDIYAPARAMBATH HOUSE,
P.O.ERANHIKKAL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
2 JISHA
AGED 28 YEARS
D/O.DEVADAS, NEDIYAPARAMBATH HOUSE,
P.O.ERANHIKKAL, KOZHIKODE DITRICT.
3 JIMISHA
AGED 24 YEARS
D/O.DEVADAS, NEDIYAPARAMBATH HOUSE,
P.O.ERANHIKKAL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV P.V.ANOOP
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN OP(MV):
1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S.PEEKEY ROLLER FLOUR MILLS,
NALLALAM P.O. KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 014.
(RC OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE KL-11-J 6137)
2 IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
COCHIN SBU, XL/1485,
SATGAMAYA 1ST FLOOR, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN,
ERNAKULAM 682 011
(INSURER OF MOTOR CYCLE KL-11-J-6137)
BY ADV P.JACOB MATHEW
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 141 OF 2013
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2022
Supplemental petitioners, who represented the
Original petitioner in O.P.(MV).No.2722/2005 on the files of
the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode,
assail award dated 03.11.2011 in the above case, on the
ground of inadequacy. Respondents herein are the
respondents before the Tribunal.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The summary of the case is as follows:-
O.P.(MV) No.2722/2005 was filed by the original
petitioner, who is now no more, when he met with an
accident on 16.06.2005 at about 7.15 p.m. while he was
crossing the road in front of Vasantha Hotel and when he
sustained serious head injuries as a result of the accident.
He claimed Rs.6 lakh as compensation, attributing
MACA NO. 141 OF 2013
negligence on the part of the first respondent.
4. During the pendency of the petition, the original
petitioner died on 07.10.2010 and subsequently,
supplemental petitioners were impleaded.
5. The first respondent was declared ex parte by
the Tribunal.
6. The Insurance Company filed written statement
and resisted the claim, while admitting valid policy to the
vehicle involved in the accident.
7. The Tribunal tried the matter. PW1 examined
and Exts.A1 to A36 were marked on the side of the
appellants. No evidence let in by the respondents. Ext.C1
disability certificate was also marked.
8. Thereafter, as against the claim of Rs.6 lakh, the
Tribunal granted Rs.2,95,112/-.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants argued
that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is on lower
MACA NO. 141 OF 2013
side since the income of the original claimant was claimed
at Rs.6,000/- as a person doing business. But the Tribunal
fixed the same at Rs.5,000/-. It is argued by the learned
counsel for the appellants further that Exts.A5 and A36
showing payment of license fee for running a stationary
shop during the years 2004 - 05, 2005 - 06 and for the
period 2009 were produced. Ext.A35 alone is relevant in
this case.
10. Whereas, the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company would submit that following the ratio in
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. : (2011) 13 SCC
236, Rs.5,000/- fixed by the Tribunal as the monthly
income is reasonable and no evidence, otherwise,
established to see that the original petitioner was having
income more than Rs.5,000/-.
11. While appraising this contention, mere
production of a receipt showing payment of license fee for
MACA NO. 141 OF 2013
running stationary business, by itself, is not sufficient to
hold that the original petitioner was having income of
Rs.6,000/- at the time of accident. Therefore, I am not
inclined to re-visit the monthly income fixed by the
Tribunal. Thus, it appears that the Tribunal granted
compensation on all heads based on the evidence
available, treating the case as a case of injury, where
there was no evidence adduced to substantiate that the
original petitioner died after five years of accident in
consequence of the accidental injuries.
12. On perusal of the award, it is noticed that the
Tribunal granted Rs.15,000/- alone under the head 'pain
and sufferings', Rs.5,000/- under the head 'loss of
convenience and enjoyment of life' and Rs.5,000/- under
the head 'extra nourishment'.
13. As per Ext.A3 wound certificate, the original
claimant sustained head injury with parietal extra dual
haematoma, subarachnoid haemorrhage pneumocephalus,
MACA NO. 141 OF 2013
fissure fracture right parietal bone and fracture left femur
and he underwent treatment for the same for a period of
ten days from 16.06.2005 to 25.06.2005, as borne out
from the disability certificate issued and the treatment
records. In view of the above, I am inclined to grant
Rs.12,000/- more under the head 'pain and suffering' and
Rs.18,000/- more under the head 'loss of amenities and
enjoyment of life' and Rs.5,000/- more is granted under
the head 'extra nourishment'.
In the result, this appeal stands allowed in part. It is
held that the appellants are entitled to get Rs.3,30,112/-
as compensation out of which Rs.2,95,112/- was granted
by the Tribunal and the balance amount of Rs.35,000/- is
granted as enhanced compensation with the same rate of
interest awarded by the Tribunal, excluding interest for a
period of 306 days specifically excluded by this Court
while allowing the delay petition-C.M.Application No.1 of
2013 as per order dated 24.11.2021, payable by the 1st
MACA NO. 141 OF 2013
and 2nd respondents jointly and severally from the date of
petition till the date of deposit or realisation.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
amount in equal proportion in the name of the appellants
within two months from today. On deposit, the appellant
can release the same.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
nkr
