Kerala High Court
Marakkar M vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd on 24 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
MACA NO. 2475 OF 2010
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1859/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, MANJERI
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MARAKKAR M.
S/O.RAYIN
MANGADAN HOUSE, PARAMBILANGADI,
EDARIKKODE.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENT/THIRD RESPONDENT:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD
BRANCH OFFICE, PANDI AUTOMOBILE BUILDING,
UPHILL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
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. 2475 OF 2010
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2022
Appellant is the petitioner in O.P.(MV).No.1859/2001
on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri
and he impugns award dated 25.08.2005 in the above
case. Respondent herein is the third respondent before the
Tribunal.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The short facts of the case:
The appellant, who suffered injuries in
consequence of a motor accident occurred on 24.02.1996
at 12.45 hours, had approached the Tribunal and claimed
compensation to the tune of Rs.2,30,000/-, attributing
negligence against the driver of the jeep, who is the first
respondent before the Tribunal.
MACA NO. 2475 OF 2010
4. The respondent-Insurance Company filed written
statement disputing negligence and quantum of
compensation while admitting policy.
5. The Tribunal examined PW1 and marked Exts.A1
to A9 on the side of the appellant. No evidence let in by
the respondent.
6. It is argued by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the disability certificate produced as Ext.A7
was not considered by the Tribunal and no amount under
the heads 'loss of earnings' and 'loss of disability' was
granted. According to him, more amount under the said
heads are liable to be granted to the appellant.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company would submit that the appellant lodged petition
claiming compensation only in the year 2001, though he
alleged to have sustained injuries in an accident occurred
on 24.02.1996. It is argued further that eventhough Ext.A7
treatment cum disability certificate showing 10% disability
MACA NO. 2475 OF 2010
was produced, the Tribunal negatived the claim under
disability, on the finding that during evidence, PW1
admitted that he had been working abroad at the time of
examination also.
8. In this case, Ext.A2-wound certificate and Ext.A3
series-discharge summary would go to show that the
appellant sustained abrasion right forehead temporal
region, contusion chin, abrasion over right knee and
compound comminuted fracture both bone right leg etc.
He was treated for a period of 15 days from 24.02.1996 to
11.03.1996 initially and thereafter, for a period of 12 days
from 01.04.1996 to 12.04.1996. Again, he was treated for
a period of 13 days from 14.11.1996 to 27.11.1996.
9. In this case, though the appellant sustained both
bone fracture and treatment, no amount granted under
the head 'by-standers expense', loss earnings', 'loss of
amenities' and 'loss of disabilities'.
MACA NO. 2475 OF 2010
10. In the petition, the appellant raised contention
that he was getting Rs.2,800/- dirham per month as monthly
income. The said aspect is not established by convincing
evidence. Applying the ratio in Ramachandrappa v.
Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance
Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the monthly income
of a coolie would come to Rs.4,500/-. Since the accident is of
the year 1996, I am inclined to fix the monthly income at
Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, the 'loss of earnings' for a
period of 5 months is granted. Thus, the appellant is entitled
to get Rs.15,000/- under this head.
11. In this case, the appellant produced Ext.A7
treatment cum disability certificate showing 10%
disability. The Tribunal not considered any amount under the
head 'disability income' mainly on the ground that the
appellant admitted the fact that he had been working abroad
at the time of accident without any loss. However,
considering the injuries and treatment as I have al ready
MACA NO. 2475 OF 2010
discussed, the disability of the appellant at the rate of 5%
can be considered. The multiplier is '18' since the age of
the appellant is 25. Therefore, the disability income is
calculated as under:
3000 x 12 x 18 x 5% = Rs.32,400/-
Thus, the appellant is entitled to get Rs.32,400/- as
'disability income'.
12. Apart from that, Rs.4,800/- is granted as by-
standers expenses for the impatient treatment for 40
days. Under the head 'pain and suffering', the Tribunal
granted Rs.9,000/-. I am inclined to increase the same by
Rs.3,000/- more. Similarly, I am inclined to grant
Rs.6,000/- under the head 'loss of amenities'.
In the result, this appeal stands allowed. It is held
that the appellant is entitled to get Rs.1,18,790/- as
compensation, out of which Rs. 62,390/- was granted by
the Tribunal and the balance of Rs.56,400 is granted as
MACA NO. 2475 OF 2010
enhanced compensation with the same rate of interest
awarded by the Tribunal, payable by the Insurance
Company, from the date of petition till the date of deposit
or realisation, excluding interest for a period of 1760 days
specifically excluded by this Court while allowing the delay
petition - C.M.Appln.No.3128 of 2010 as per order dated
24.11.2010, while condoning the delay of re-presenting
this appeal.
Insurance Company is directed to deposit the same in
the name of the appellant within two months from today.
On deposit, the appellant can release the same.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
nkr
