Kerala High Court
Susheer vs K B Ajayan on 11 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
TH
THURSDAY, THE 11
DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA,
1946
MACA NO. 60 OF 2014
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 20.12.2012 IN OP(MV) NO.3195 OF 2005
OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
USHEER,
S
AGED 36 YEARS,
S/O.BHARATHAN, RESIDING AT KANJATTY HOUSE, MANATHALA,
CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR.
Y ADVS.
B
SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
SRI.A.R.NIMOD
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1
K B AJAYAN,
RESIDING AT KANJATTY HOUSE, MANATHALA, CHAVAKKAD,
THRISSUR - 680 506.
2
A.V.HARIDASAN,
S/O.VELAYI, RESIDING AT ADAPUZHA ACHIVEETTIL, BLANGAD,
CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 506.
MACA No.60 of 2014 2
3
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
ANUGRAHA BUILDINGS, WADAKKANCHERY ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM,
THRISSUR - 680 503.
Y ADV SRI.RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY, SC, THE NEW INDIA
B
ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
THIS
MOTOR
ACCIDENT
CLAIMS
APPEAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY
EARD
H ON
11.04.2024,
THE
COURT
ON
THE
SAME
DAY
DELIVERED
THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA No.60 of 2014 3
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is at the instance of the claimant in
OP(MV)No.3195 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Thrissur, challenging the award on the ground of
inadequacy of compensation.
2. The appellant met with a road traffic accident on
05.11.2005, while he was travelling in KL-8/P-6062
autorickshaw from Pavaratty to Chavakkad. The 2nd
respondentwasthedriveroftheautorickshawandtheaccident
occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. The appellant
sufferedseriousinjuries,includingfractureoffemurofleftleg.
He was hospitalised for 21 days. He was a businessman
earning monthly income of Rs.8,000/-. He approached the
Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. But the
Tribunal awarded only Rs.58,850/-. Hence this appeal.
3. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the
autorickshaw remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The 3rd
respondent-Insurer contested the case, but admitted the
policy. Since there was violation of the policy conditions, 'pay
MACA No.60 of 2014 4
and recovery' was ordered by the Tribunal, in favour of the
Insurer.
4. In the appeal also, respondents 1 and 2 remained
absentinspiteofserviceofnotice.The3rdrespondent-Insurer
entered appearance through counsel.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the 3rd respondent-Insurer.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
though they produced Ext.A6 medical bills for Rs.46,630/-,
learnedTribunalerroneouslyawardedonlyRs.3,630/-.Learned
counsel for the 3rd respondent also admitted that Ext.A6
medical bills were amounting to Rs.46,630/- and so, that
amount ought to have been awarded by the Tribunal. So, this
Court is inclined to award Rs.46,630/- towards medical
expenses. After deducting, Rs.3,630 already awarded, the
appellant is entitled to get Rs.43,000/- towards medical
expenses.
7. Learned Tribunal fixed the notional income of the
MACA No.60 of 2014 5
appellant @ Rs.3,000/- against his claim of Rs.8,000/-.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that going by
the decision Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR
2011 SC 2951], the appellant was eligibletogethisnotional
income fixed @ Rs.5,000/- per annum, as the accidentwasin
the year 2005. So, this Court is inclinedtoaccepthisnotional
income @ Rs.5,000/-. For loss of earning for six months, he
was eligible to get Rs.30,000/-. After deducting Rs.18,000/-
already awarded, he is entitled to get the balance amount of
Rs.12,000/-.
8. Towards extra nourishment, this Court is inclined to
award Rs.2,000/- as he was hospitalised for 21 days.
9. Towards damage to clothing Rs.500/- can be awarded
as no amount was ordered by the Tribunal under that head.
10. Towardspainandsuffering,andforlossofamenities,
Rs.10,000/- each is awarded in addition to the amount
awarded by the Tribunal, as he had suffered fracture to the
MACA No.60 of 2014 6
femur left leg, and he was hospitalised for 21 days.
11. Learned Tribunal awardedRs.10,000/-towardsfuture
treatment and for removal of implants. Since thefracturewas
on femur of left leg, and treated with implants, this Court is
inclined to award Rs.10,000/- more towards future treatment
and removal of implants.
12. The compensation awarded under all other heads
seems to be reasonable, and hence it needs no modification.
Head of claim mount
A mount
A Difference to be
awarded by awarded in drawn as
the Tribunal appeal enhanced
compensation
edical
M
expenses Rs.3,630/- Rs.46,630/- Rs.43,000/-
Loss of earning Rs.18,000/- Rs.30,000/- Rs.12,000/-
xtra
E ..... Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/-
nourishment
amage to
D
clothing ...... Rs.500/- Rs.500/-
ain and
P Rs.12,000/- Rs.22,000/- Rs.10,000/-
suffering
oss of
L Rs.8,000/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.10,000/-
amenities
MACA No.60 of 2014 7
iscomfort &
D Rs.10,000/- Rs.20,000/- Rs.10,000/-
future treatment
Total Rs.87,500/-
Enhanced compensation is Rs.87,500/-
13.Intheresult,theappellantisentitledtogetenhanced
compensationofRs.87,500/-(43,000+12,000+2,000+500
+10,000 + 10,000 + 10,000).
14. The 3rd respondent-Insurer is directed todepositthe
enhanced compensation of Rs.87,500/- (Rupees Eighty Seven
Thousand and Five Hundred only) with interest @ 8% per
annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit,
(excluding 244 days of delay in filing the appeal), before the
Motor Accidents Claims 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, legal benefit funds etc.
15. Learned Tribunal ordered pay and recovery in favour
of the 3rd respondent, as there was violation of the policy
MACA No.60 of 2014 8
conditions.Thatfindingwasneverchallengedbyrespondents1
and 2. So the pay and recovery ordered in favour of the 3rd
respondent stands confirmed.
The appeal is allowed to the extent as above, and no
order is made as to costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS
JUDGE
DSV/-
