Kerala High Court
Susheela vs Suju on 11 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
MACA NO. 612 OF 2017
[AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 25/5/2015 IN OP(MV) NO.1983/2012 PASSED
BY THE MACT, KOLLAM]
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SUSHEELA
AGED 56 YEARS
D/O. LEKSHMIKUTTY, LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY,HOUSE NO. 7,
KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.P.ANIL RAJ
SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
SMT.SREEVIDYA R.S
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SUJU
S/O. KUMARAN, KAZHAKKOOTTATHU PADINJATTATHIL,
KUREEPUZHA CHERRY, KAVANAD P.O, KOLLAM - 3, PIN -
691003.
2 SUDHAKARAN PILLAI
S/O. RAGHAVAN PILLAI, LEKSHMI BHAVAN, K.R.N. NAGAR
21,PIRAVOOR KIZHAKKATHIL, SAKTHIKULANGARA P.O,KOLLAM -
691581
3 THE MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD,PARAMESWARA PILLAI BHAVAN,
HOSPITAL ROAD,KOLLAM BRANCH - 691 001.
BY ADV SMT.P.A.REZIYA-R3
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 612 OF 2017 2
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein is the claimant in OP(MV)
No.1983 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Kollam, challenging the award as
the quantum of compensation is on the lower side.
2. On 17/10/2007 at 3.00 pm, the appellant was
hit by KL-2 V 4272 motorcycle ridden by the 2nd
respondent in a rash and negligent manner. She
sustained serious injuries including compound
fracture of left leg lower 1/3rd and her left leg
was deformed. She was admitted and treated in the
hospital for 15 days in total. She was working in a
cashew factory earning monthly income of
Rs.6,000/-. She approached the Tribunal claiming
compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-, but the Tribunal
awarded only Rs.37,333/-, and hence this appeal.
3. The 1st respondent was the owner of the
offending motorcycle, the 2nd respondent was its
rider and the 3rd respondent its insurer. The 3rd
respondent insurer contested the case, but
admitted the policy.
4. In the appeal, notice to respondents 1 and 2
was dispensed with, since the 3rd respondent
insurer entered appearance through counsel and
admitted the policy.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/insurer.
6. The appellant is challenging the award mainly
on the ground that, learned Tribunal refused to
accept her monthly income as Rs.6,000/- though PW2
the Manager of her employer was examined to prove
her job and income. Exhibit A13 document was
produced by PW2 to show that the appellant was
working in a cashew factory drawing monthly income
of Rs.6,000/-.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that, even without that document going by
the decision Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR
2011 SC 2951], she was eligible to get her notional
income fixed @ Rs.6,000/-. Learned Tribunal did not
award any amount under the head loss of earnings,
finding that, since she was on ESI leave, she might
have received salary during the period of
leave. PW2 deposed before the Tribunal that, the
appellant was on ESI leave from 17/10/2007 till
5/7/2009. But, no records were produced to show the
period of leave or to show any loss of income
during that period. Considering the nature of the
injuries suffered by the appellant, and the period
of hospitalization, this Court is inclined to take,
a period of eight months for computing compensation
for loss of earning. Even if she had received
salary/wages during that period, she lost that
leave only because of that accident. So
considering the loss of leave, she can be
compensated @ Rs.6,000/- per month for a period of
8 months. So she is entitled to get Rs.48,000/-.
8. Learned Tribunal found that, since she was
employed till her superannuation, there was no loss
of salary due to the disability if any suffered by
her. But considering her functional disability
after superannuation, 4% reduction in her earning
capacity was taken into account by the Tribunal and
an amount of Rs.6,720/- was awarded. In the year
2007, the age of superannuation was 55. So the
multiplier applicable was 11. Taking her monthly
income as Rs.6,000/- compensation for loss of
earning capacity due to 4% functional disability
could be assessed as Rs.31,680/- (6,000x12x11x4%).
After deducting Rs.6,720/- already awarded, she is
entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.24,960/-.
9. Towards loss of amenities, the Tribunal
awarded only Rs.2,240/-. she was a 52 year old lady
at the time of accident, and she suffered compound
fracture of left leg lower 1/3rd and her left leg
was deformed also. Considering that aspect, this
Court is inclined to award Rs.10,000/-, more
towards loss of amenities.
10. Towards bystander expenses, the Tribunal
awarded only Rs.1,500/-, though the appellant was
hospitalised for 15 days. Since she suffered
compound fracture of left leg with deformity, even
after discharge, she might have been under
attention of a bystander, considering that aspect
this Court is inclined to award Rs.1,000/- more,
towards bystander expenses.
11. The compensation awarded under all other
heads seems to be reasonable, and hence it needs no
modification.
12. The enhanced compensation awarded in this
appeal is stated in the table below:-
Amount Amount
Head of claim Difference to be
awarded by awarded in
drawn as enhanced
the Tribunal appeal compensation
48,000/-
Loss of earning - [6,000x8] 48,000/-
Compensation 31,680/-
for loss of 6,720/- [6,000x12x11x 24,960/-
earning power 4%]
Loss of
2,240/- 12,240/- 10,000/-
amenities
Bystander
1,500/- 2,500/- 1,000/-
expenses
TOTAL 83,960/-
13. So the appellant is entitled to get
enhanced compensation of Rs.83,960/-
[48,000+24,960+10,000+1,000] as enhanced
compensation.
14. The 3rd respondent/insurer is directed to
deposit the enhanced compensation with interest @
9% per annum, from the date of petition till the
date of deposit (excluding 512 days of delay in
filing the appeal) before the Motor Accidents Claim
Tribunal concerned within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. Learned Tribunal shall disburse that
amount to the appellant, after deducting the
liabilities, if any, towards Tax, balance court fee
and legal benefit fund.
The appeal is allowed to the extent as above,
and no order is made as to costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS,
JUDGE
ska
