Kerala High Court
Rashida Beevi vs Prasannan on 12 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
TH
FRIDAY, THE 12
DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA,
1946
MACA NO. 2762 OF 2012
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 14.03.2012 IN OP(MV) NO.603 OF 2007 OF
FIRST ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM
APPELLANT/S:
ASHIDA BEEVI,
R
W/O.KUNJUMON, SULTHANA MANZIL, MEMANA MURI,
OACHIRA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
Y ADVS.
B
SRI.K.SIJU
SMT.BINDU GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1
PRASANNAN,
S/O.KRISHNAN KUTTY, PRASANNA BHAVANAM,
KRISHNAPURAM P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690 533.
*2
SHANAVAS, S/O.KUNJUMON, MULLASSERIL VEEDU, NJAKKANAL P.O
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690557. (DELETED)
THE SECOND RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT
*
THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT, AS PER ORDER DATED 8/11/2021 IN
I.A NO. 1/2021 IN MACA 2762/2012.
MACA 2762 of 2012 2
3
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLLAM - 691001.
BY ADV SMT.SARAH SALVY, SC, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
HIS
T MOTOR
ACCIDENT
CLAIMS
APPEAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY
HEARD
ON
12.04.2024,
THE
COURT
ON
THE
SAME
DAY
DELIVERED
THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA 2762 of 2012 3
J U D G M E N T
ThisappealisattheinstanceoftheclaimantinOP(MV)
No.603 of 2007 on the file of First Additional Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, challenging the award
on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.
2. The appellant met with a road traffic accident on
11.09.2004, while she was pillion riding KL-04/N-2058
motorcycle ridden by the 2nd respondent, in a rash and
negligent manner. She suffered injuries including
comminuted fracture of right humerus. She wasadmitted
and treated at A M Hospital, Karunagapally, for 20 days.
Even after discharge, she was continuing her treatment
and was admitted for three days for removalofimplants.
She approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of
Rs.1,50,000/-,but theTribunalawardedonlyRs.56,500/-.
Hence this Appeal.
MACA 2762 of 2012 4
3. The1strespondentwastheowneroftheoffending
motorcycle, 2nd respondent was its rider and the 3rd
respondent was its Insurer. Before the Tribunal,
Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. The 3rd
respondent-Insurer contested the case, but admitted the
policy.Accordingtothem,the2ndrespondentriderhadno
drivinglicence and hence therewasviolation ofthepolicy
conditions. So'payand recovery'wasorderedinfavourof
the Insurer.
4. In the appeal, the 1st respondent-owner of the
offendingvehicleoptedtoremainabsentinspiteofservice
ofnotice.The2ndrespondent-riderwasremovedfromthe
party array. The 3rd respondent-Insurer entered
appearance through counsel and admitted the policy, but
reiterated their contention that there was violation of the
policy conditions.
MACA 2762 of 2012 5
5.Heardlearnedcounselfortheappellantandlearned
counsel for the 3rd respondent-Insurer.
6.The maingrievanceof theappellantisthatthough
shewas a house wifeagedonly48,learnedTribunalfixed
her notional income @ Rs.2,500/-, which is on the lower
side. Relying on the decision Ramachandrappa v.
Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance
Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951], learned
counsel for the appellant would submit that since the
accidentwas intheyear 2004,she waseligibletogether
notional income fixed @ Rs.4,500/-. Even if she was a
housewife earning no income, her services to the family
had to betakeninto accountand so,her monthly income
can be notionally fixed as Rs.4,500/-. She suffered
comminuted fracture of right humerus, and she was
hospitalisedfor23daysintotal. Solossofearningcanbe
MACA 2762 of 2012 6
taken for a periodofthreemonths @ Rs.4,500/-.So, she
is eligible to get Rs.13,500/-. After deducting Rs.5,000/-
alreadyawarded,sheisentitledtogetthebalanceamount
of Rs.8,500/- under the head 'loss of earning.
7.Towardsbystanderexpenses,thisCourtisinclined
to award Rs.1,500/- more as she was hospitalised for 23
days in total.
8. Towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- more is
awardedasshehassufferedcomminutedfractureonright
humerus with hospitalisation of 23 days.
9.Towards discomfort,learned Tribunal awardedonly
Rs.5,000/-.Sincetheappellant was a housewifeaged 48,
comminuted fracture of righthumerus mighthave caused
muchdiscomfort,inherdaytodayaffairs.SothisCourtis
inclined to award Rs.10,000/- more towards, discomfort
suffered by her.
MACA 2762 of 2012 7
10.Thecompensationawardedunder allother heads
seems to be reasonable, and hence it needs no
modification.
Head of claim Amount Amount ifference to
D
warded by
a awarded in be drawn as
the Tribunal appeal enhanced
compensation
Loss of earning Rs.5,000/- Rs.13,500/- Rs.8,500/-
ystander
B
expenses Rs.2,000/- Rs.3,500/- Rs.1,500/-
Pain & suffering Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.5,000/-
Discomfort Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.25,000/-
11. In the result, the appellant is entitled to get
enhanced compensation ofRs.25,000/-(8,500 + 1,500+
5,000 + 10,000).
12. The3rdrespondent-Insurerisdirectedtodeposit
enhanced compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupee Twenty
Five Thousandonly),with 7.5% interestper annum,from
the dateof petition tillthedateofdeposit,(excluding164
MACA 2762 of 2012 8
days of delay in filing the appeal) before the First
Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,Kollam, within
a periodof twomonthsfrom thedate ofreceiptofacopy
of this judgment. Learned Tribunal shall disburse that
amount to the appellant after deducting liabilities, if any,
towardstax,balancecourtfee,legalbenefitfundsetc.The
pay and recovery order in favour of the 3rd
respondent-Insurer is confirmed.
Theappeal isallowedtotheextent asabove,andno
order is made as to costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS
JUDGE
DSV/-
