Kerala High Court
Anitha P.N vs Ganesan on 27 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1944
MACA NO. 3808 OF 2018
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 15.05.2018 IN OPMV 262/2012 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ANITHA P.N., AGED 43 YEARS
D/O.BALAN K P., W/O.P.C.SUNIL, KRISHNA KRIPA,
VADAKKUMPAD.P.O., THALASSERY, KANNUR, PIN-670105.
BY ADV ASHWIN SATHYANATH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 GANESAN, S/O.AYYATHARA, 238B/11, C.P.QUARTERS,
CHIRAKKAL.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670011
(OWNER OF THE BUS BEARING NO.KL-05/P-5216).
2 JIJO, S/O.GANESAN A, PREM NIVAS,
NEAR SOMESWARI TEMPLE, P.O.CHIRAKKAL,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670011 (DRIVER OF THE BUS
BEARING NO.KL-05/P-5216)
3 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY THE
DEPUTY MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682016.(INSURER).
BY ADV SMT.P.A.REZIYA
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.3808 of 2018
2
J U D G M E N T
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant in
O.P.(M.V) No.262 of 2012 on the file of Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, challenging the
quantum of compensation awarded under various heads.
2. The appellant met with a road traffic accident
on 07.01.2012, at 07.00 p.m., while she was travelling in
a K.S.R.T.C bus. KL-05/P-5216 stage carriage owned by the
1st respondent and driven by the 2 nd respondent rammed
into the K.S.R.T.C bus, in which the appellant was
travelling, and she suffered extensive injuries including
fracture, and her right hand was amputated from the
shoulder joint. She suffered much pain and suffering, and
she is unable to do any work as her right hand is
amputated. The offending vehicle was insured with the 3 rd
respondent-United India Insurance Company Limited.
Against her claim of Rs.20 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded
only Rs.10,42,570/-. Claiming enhanced compensation, she
M.A.C.A.No.3808 of 2018
approached this Court.
3. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2
remained ex-parte and the 3 rd respondent filed written
statement, admitting the policy and attributing
negligence on the part of the K.S.R.T.C driver. According
to them, there was no negligence from the part of the
driver of the stage carriage bearing registration
No.KL-05/P-5216. Without prejudice to that contention,
they objected the quantum of compensation claimed by the
appellant.
4. No oral evidence was adduced from either side.
Exts.A1 to A7 were marked from the side of the appellant.
After analysing the facts and evidence, the Tribunal
awarded compensation of Rs.10,42,570- with 9% interest.
5. The appellant is challenging the quantum of
compensation, mainly on the ground that, the notional
income calculated @ Rs.6,000/- per month was too low.
Going by the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC
M.A.C.A.No.3808 of 2018
2951], even for a housewife, in the year 2012, the
notional income could have been fixed @ Rs.9,500/-.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent
pointed out that, even according to the appellant, her
monthly income was only Rs.7,500/, and no amount can be
allowed exceeding that sum. Since her claim is only
Rs.7,500/- per month, she cannot claim any excess amount
and this Court is inclined to fix her monthly income
notionally @ Rs.7,500/-. Since she suffered extensive
injuries resulting in amputation of her right hand from
shoulder joint, loss of earning can be calculated for 10
months @ Rs.7,500/- So, she is entitled to get
Rs.75,000/- under that head. After deducting Rs.30,000/-
already paid, she is entitled to get the difference of
Rs.45,000/- under the head 'loss of earning'.
7. Towards bystander expenses, the Tribunal awarded
only Rs.200/- per day for 4 days. Since she suffered very
serious injuries including amputation of her right hand,
assistance of bystander might have been obtained at least
M.A.C.A.No.3808 of 2018
for 30 days. Rs.200/- per day is too low and this Court
is inclined to award Rs.500/- per day. So, towards
bystander expenses, the appellant is entitled to get
Rs.15,000/- (500 x 30=15,000). After deducting Rs.800/-
already paid, she is entitled to get Rs.14,200/- towards
enhancement in bystander expenses.
8. Towards loss of amenities, she was given only
Rs.10,000/-. As she lost her right limb from the shoulder
joint, Rs.10,000/- is too low and this Court is inclined
award Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities. After
deducting Rs.10,000/- already paid, she is entitled to
get the difference of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of
amenities.
9. The appellant suffered permanent disability of
80% going by the schedule attached to the Employees
Compensation Act. So, the Tribunal assessed her
disability at the rate 80%, which is not disputed by the
3rd respondent. We have fixed her notional income @
Rs.7,500/-. Going by the decision in National Insurance
M.A.C.A.No.3808 of 2018
Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, [(2017) 16 SCC
680], in the case of persons aged below 40 and not having
fixed income, 40% enhancement can be given towards future
prospectus. Admittedly, the appellant was only 37 years
old at the time of accident and she claimed to be a
Tailor by profession. Going by Pranay Sethi's case
(supra), giving 40% enhancement, her monthly income can
be taken @ Rs.10,500/-. The multiplier applicable is 15
and permanent disability is 80%. So, compensation for
permanent disability can be calculated as Rs.15,12,000/-
(10,500x12x15x80/100). She was already given
Rs.8,64,000/- and so the difference entitled is
Rs.6,48,000/-.
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.7,22,200/- (Rs.45000/- +
Rs.14,200/- + Rs.15,000/- +Rs.6,48,000/- = Rs.7,22,200/-)
12. The 3rd respondent Insurer is directed to deposit
M.A.C.A.No.3808 of 2018
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
AS
