Kerala High Court
Manoj vs The Branch Manager, New Indi ... on 24 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
MACA NO. 4228 OF 2019
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 06.07.2019 IN OP(MV) 1462/2014 OF
THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
MAVELIKKARA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MANOJ,
AGED 27 YEARS,
S/O.MADHU, MANU BHAVANAM, THAMALLAKKAL VADAKKUM
MURI, ULAVUKADU MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE,
MAVELIKKARA TALUK - 689 512.
BY ADV RESMY M.S
RESPONDENT/2nd RESPONDENT:
THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
CO.LTD.,
KAYAMKULAM - 690 502.
BY ADV SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NO.4228 OF 2019 2
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the claimant in O.P.
(MV)No.1462 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Mavelikara.
2. On 07.04.2013, the appellant met with a road accident while
travelling in KL-26-3916 motorcycle, along with his friend. They were
knocked down by KL- 04/T-861 autorickshaw owned and driven by the
1st respondent. The 2nd respondent-New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Kayamkulam was the insurer.
3. The appellant suffered the following injuries:
1. Type II supra inter condylar fracture right femur.
2. Communited fracture on the patella right.
3. Lacerated wound right knee.
4. Lacerated wound right thigh.
5. Lacerated wound right toe.
6. Skin and flesh grafting done.
4. He was taken to NSS Medical Mission Hospital, Pandalam and
from there, he was referred to Medical College Hospital,
Thiruvananthapuram and treated as inpatient from 08.04.2013 to
23.04.2013. He was a 22 year old mechanic in an Ape Wrokshop,
earning monthly income of Rs.16,000/-.
5. PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A26 documents
were marked from the side of appellant. Ext.B1 was marked from the
side of the insurer and Ext.X1 was marked as Witness Exhibit.
6. After analysing the facts and evidence, the Tribunal awarded
compensation of Rs.5,75,880/- to the appellant against his claim for
Rs.13,96,000. He has come up with this appeal challenging the
quantum of compensation.
7. Now the point to be considered is whether the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper.
8. According to the appellant, though he was a mechanic, the
Tribunal fixed notional income of Rs.8,000/- only, which is on the lower
side. He was a mechanic in an Ape Workshop earning monthly salary of
Rs.16,000/-. Exhibit-A20 Certificate issued by this employer was also
produced by him, which was proved through PW2-the Proprietor of the
workshop. But there was no document to prove his proprietorship of
the workshop as claimed by him. The learned Tribunal also came to
the conclusion that the appellant was working as a mechanic; but since
PW2 could not produce any supporting documents, Exhibit-A20 was not
accepted, and a notional income of Rs.8,000/- was fixed for him.
Going by the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC
2951], his notional income in the year 2013 could have been fixed @
Rs.9,000/-. Since he was found to be a mechanic, involving skilled
work, his notional income could be fixed @ Rs.9500/-. So, towards
loss of earning for eight months, he could have been awarded
Rs.76,000/-. He was already awarded Rs.64,000/-, and so he is
entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.12,000/- under that head.
9. According to the appellant, he suffered fracture of right femur,
communited fracture on the right patella and other lacerated wounds
which required skin and flesh grafting. He was hospitalised for 31
days. He had suffered disability of 30% as seen from Ext.X1 certificate
issued by the Medical Board. But the Tribunal assessed his functional
disability at a reduced rate of 15%.
10. Smt.Resmy M.S., the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant relied on Rajkumar v. Ajaykumar [2011 (1) KLT 620] to
say that when disability certificates are given by duly constituted
Medial Board, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the
genuineness of such Certificates. The respondent is not disputing the
genuineness of Ext.X1 Medical Certificate issued by the Medical Board.
So his disability @ 30% reported by the Medical Board ought to have
been accepted by the Tribunal.
11. We have fixed the notional income of the appellant @
Rs.9,500/-. The multiplier is 18 and when 30% disability is taken into
account, the amount of compensation payable on account of
permanent disability is Rs.6,15,600 (9,500 X 12 X 18 X 30/100). He
was already awarded Rs.3,62,880/-, so he is entitled to get a balance
amount of Rs.2,52,720/- under that head.
12. Towards pain and suffering, he was given Rs.25,000/- and
towards loss of amenities Rs.30,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal.
Considering the nature of injuries suffered, the period of hospitalisation
and the disability he had met with, Rs.20,000/- more can be awarded
under each of the head towards 'pain and suffering' and 'loss of
amenities'.
13. In all other counts, the compensation awarded seems to be
reasonable and it required no enhancement.
14. In the result, the appellant is entitled to get enhanced
compensation of Rs.3,04,720/- (12,000 + 2,52,720 + 20,000 +
20,000).
15. The respondent Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation in the Bank account of the appellant with interest at the
rate of 9% from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. The deposit must be in terms of the directives issued by this
Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06/09/2019 and clarified in
O.M.No.D1/62475/2016 dated 07/11/2019 after deducting the
liabilities, if any, of the appellant towards Tax, balance court fee and
legal benefit fund.
The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS,
JUDGE
DSV/25.06.2022
