Poulose vs Arun
2022 Latest Caselaw 7416 Ker

            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. 2319 OF 2012
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 31.05.2012 IN OP(MV)564/2009 ON THE
  FILES OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

            POULOSE,
            AGED 50 YEARS,
            S/O.MATHEW, CHEMMIKKATTIL HOUSE, MALAVAYAL,
            NENMENI VILLAGE, SULTHANBATHERY TALUK,
            WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673 592.
            BY ADVS.
            SMT.P.P.STELLA
            SRI.BIJIMON C.CHERIAN


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1       ARUN, AGED 27 YEARS,
            S/O.BALAKRISHNAN PILLAI, VAKALAYATH HOUSE,
            KUNNATHUR P.O.,KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690540.
    2       THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
            BON MONTO CARGO, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686631.
    3       THE BRANCH MANAGER, BAJAJ ALIANZ GENERAL
            INSURANCE CO LTD., PAZHAVANGADY,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695023.

            R3 BY ADV SRI.P.S.RAMU


     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.2319 OF 2012                 2




                                JUDGMENT

This appeal has been preferred by the claimant in OP(MV)

No.564 of 2019 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

Kalpetta.

2. The appellant met with a road traffic accident on

17.11.2008 at 3:30 p.m., while pillion riding KL-12/D-1481

Motorcycle. He sustained Haematoma occipital area, fracture sixth

right rib and Pupils were dilated and slightly reacting. He had

undergone Impatient treatment in Assumption Hospital from

17.11.2008 to 20.11.2008. Thereafter, he was treated at Medical

College Hospital, Kozhikode from 20.11. 2008 to 29.11.2008.

3. The offending vehicle was validly insured with Bajaj Allianz

General Insurance Company Ltd. The Tribunal awarded

compensation of Rs.62,700/- against his claim of Rs.1,50,000/-.

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, he has come up

with this appeal.

4. What needs to be considered is whether there is any

illegality or impropriety in the award of the Tribunal, which requires

interference by this Court.

5. The appellant was a Checking Inspector in a private bus

and Exhibit-A11 Salary Certificate was produced by him to prove his

salary @ Rs.9,500/-. But nobody was examined to prove that

Certificate. So the Tribunal fixed a notional income as Rs.3,000/-.

According to the claimant, Rs.3,000/- per month is on the lesser

side and even going by the decision Ramachandrappa v.

Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company

Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951], even a coolie could get Rs.6,500/-

per month in the year 2008. The 3rd respondent Insurance

Company is also amenable to fix his notional income @ Rs.6,500/-

based on the above decision. Annexure-A6 Treatment Certificate

will show that he was advised to take rest for six months. So his

loss of earning can be assessed as Rs.6,500X6, which will come to

Rs.39,000/-. He was already given Rs.9,000/- under that head. So

he is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.30,000/- under the

head 'loss of earnings'.

6. Towards medical expenses, the appellant was given

Rs.21,600/- by the Tribunal as per the bills produced by him. He

produced additional bills as Annexures-A1 to A7, which were

accepted as per order in I. A. No. 1 of 2022 in the appeal. The

amount covered by those bills will come to Rs.6,362/- in total. The

medicines mentioned in Annexures-A1 to A7 were already

prescribed from Medical College, when he took treatment in

connection with the accident. It shows that he continued his

treatment for the injuries he had suffered in the accident. So he is

liable to get the amount covered by the additional medical bills

produced as per Annexure-A1 to A7, amounting to Rs.6,362/-.

Towards bystander expenses, he was given Rs.100/- per day for 13

days, which is also on the lower side, it seems. The accident was in

the year 2008. So this Court is inclined to award bystander

expenses @ Rs.200/- for 13 days. Hence, he is entitled to get

enhancement of Rs.1,300/- under that head.

7. Towards transportation expenses, he had claimed

Rs.5,000/- and he was awarded only Rs.4,000/-. The appellant says

that he belongs to Wayanad and he was taken to Medical College

Hospital, Kozhikode for treatment. So, the amount claimed by him

seems to be quite reasonable and Rs.5,000/- could be awarded

towards transportation expenses. So he is eligible to get the

balance Rs.1,000/- in that head.

8. Towards extra nourishment, award was given for

Rs.1,300/-. There was 13 days hospitalisation and he had suffered

injury to head and also rib fracture. So towards extra nourishment

Rs.5,000/- in total seems to be fair and proper. Since he was given

only Rs.1,300/-, he is eligible to get the balance Rs.3,700/-.

Towards pain and suffering, he was given only Rs.10,000/-.

Considering the injury suffered by him and hospitalization,

Rs.5,000/- more could have been awarded towards pain and

suffering and this Court is amenable to award Rs.5,000/- more.

9. Towards loss of amenities Rs.5,000/- only was awarded by

the Tribunal. Since he had suffered head injury and rib fracture,

Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities could have been proper. So

since he was already paid Rs.5,000/-, he is entitled to get the

balance Rs.5,000/- on that head.

10. In all other counts, the compensation awarded seems to

be reasonable and it requires no enhancement.

11. In the result, the appellant is entitled to get enhanced

compensation of Rs.52,362/- (30,000 + 6,362 + 1,300 + 1,000 +

3,700 + 5,000 + 5,000).

12. The 3rd respondent insurer is directed to deposit the

enhanced compensation of Rs.52,362/- 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

APPENDIX OF MACA NO.2319 OF 2012

APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE A1 BILL NO.1120 DATED 10.09.2012 ISSUED FROM MALABAR MEDICALS SULTHANBATHERI.

ANNEXURE A2 BILL NO.1759 DATED 13.12.2012 ISSUED FROM MALABAR MEDICALS SULTHANBATHERI.

ANNEXURE A3 BILL NO.2101 DATED 22.01.2013 ISSUED FROM MALABAR MEDICALS SULTHANBATHERI.

ANNEXURE A4 BILL NO.3664 DATED 15.06.2013 ISSUED FROM MALABAR MEDICALS SULTHANBATHERI.

ANNEXURE A5 BILL NO.4131 DATED 26.08.2013 ISSUED FROM MALABAR MEDICALS SULTHANBATHERI.

ANNEXURE A6 BILL NO.5151 DATED 19.12.2013 ISSUED FROM MALABAR MEDICALS SULTHANBATHERI.

ANNEXURE A7 BILL NO.2951 DATED 17.04.2015 ISSUED FROM MALABAR MEDICALS SULTHANBATHERI.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL