Kerala High Court
Aravindan @ Aravindakshan vs The Kerala State Insurance Co. Ltd on 12 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
MACA NO.2698 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 03.11.2016 IN OP(MV) NO.674
OF 2012 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL VATAKARA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ARAVINDAN @ ARAVINDAKSHAN
42 YEARS, S/O.APPUKKUTTAN NAIR,
VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, NADUVATHUR P.O.,
KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE (DIST.)
BY ADV SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.3:
THE KERALA STATE INSURANCE CO. LTD.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY IT'S
MANAGER, PIN-695001.
OTHER PRESENT:
GP-SRI.K.M.FAIZAL
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA No.2698 of 2017 2
JUDGMENT
The claimant in OP(MV) No.674 of 2012 on the file of Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara filed this appeal, challenging
the award on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.
2. The appellant met with a road traffic accident on
11.06.2011 at about 9 p.m while he was travelling in an
autorickshaw from Koilandy to Muthambi. When the autorickshaw
reached near the railway gate at Koilandy, KL-01-AM-539 police
jeep driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner,
dashed against the autorickshaw and he sustained serious injuries
including fracture of both bones of his right leg. He was admitted
and treated in hospital for 63 days in total, in three different spells.
He suffered permanent disability of 17% due to the injuries
suffered in that accident. He was a 42 year old man working as
Salesman cum Manager in a shop, earning monthly income of
Rs.15,000/-. He approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of
Rs.12 lakh. But, learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.2,34,130/-.
Hence this appeal.
3. 1st respondent-Director General of Police was the owner of
the jeep. 2nd respondent was its driver and 3rd respondent was its
insurer.
4. Respondents 1 to 3 entered appearance before the Tribunal
and filed their written statements. 3rd respondent/insurer admitted
the policy.
5. In the appeal also, respondents entered appearance and
the 3rd respondent admitted the policy.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the 3rd respondent/insurer.
7. The main grievance of the appellant is that, though he
was earning monthly income of Rs.15,000/- and produced Ext.A10
salary certificate and examined PW1 to prove his salary, learned
Tribunal fixed his notional income @ Rs.4,000/- only. PW1, the
Proprietor of Happy Home Appliances had deposed that the
appellant was working in that shop for about 11 years. But, no
documents were there to prove disbursement of salary to the
appellant for those years, and PW1 admitted that she was not
keeping salary register in her shop. Moreover, she had not
registered the appellant in the Employees Welfare Fund Board also.
So, the Tribunal could not be blamed for not accepting Ext.A10
salary certificate to take his income as Rs.15,000/-. But, going by
the decision Ramchandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Company Limited (AIR 2011 SC 2951),
since the accident was in the year 2011, the appellant was eligible
to get his notional income fixed @ Rs.8,000/- per month. Learned
Tribunal assessed loss of earning for six months @ Rs.4,000/-.
Taking his notional income @ Rs.8,000/-, he is eligible to get
Rs.48,000/- as loss of earning for six months. After deducting
Rs.24,000/- already awarded, he is entitled to get the balance
amount of Rs.24,000/-.
8. Towards medical expenses, the appellant was claiming
Rs.1,00,000/-. He produced Ext.A4 series and A8 series bills to
claim that amount. But, learned Tribunal omitted to consider
Ext.A4 series bills, and awarded only Rs.1,582/- on the basis of
Ext.A8 series bills. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that the total amount covered by Ext.A4 series bills will come to
Rs.67,506/-. But, on going through the bill amount and the
consolidated statement prepared by learned counsel for the
appellant, it could be seen that there is duplication so as to claim
Rs.67,506/-. On verifying Ext.A4 series bills produced by the
appellant, the total amount comes to Rs.33,753/- only. Since that
amount was not awarded by the Tribunal, this Court is inclined to
award Rs.33,753/- towards medical expenses on the basis of
Ext.A4 series bills.
9. Towards transportation expenses, learned Tribunal
awarded only Rs.1,500/-. It has come out in evidence that, the
appellant was admitted and treated in hospital on three different
occasions. Since he had suffered fracture of both bones of his right
leg, he might have been attending periodic review also.
Considering that aspect, this Court is inclined to award Rs.3,000/-
more towards transportation expenses.
10. Towards pain and suffering, learned Tribunal awarded
Rs.20,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries suffered and the
period of hospitalisation, this Court is inclined to award Rs.10,000/-
more under the head 'pain and suffering'.
11. Towards loss of amenities, Rs.10,000/- was awarded by
the Tribunal. Since the appellant had suffered partial ankylosis of
right knee and ankle, with shortening due to fracture of both
bones, this Court is inclined to award Rs.10,000/- more under the
head 'loss of amenities'.
12. Towards 17% disability, the appellant is eligible to get
Rs.2,28,480/-, taking his notional income @ Rs.8,000/- and
adopting multiplier of 14, as he was aged 42 (8000x12x14x17%).
After deducting Rs.1,14,240/- already awarded, he is entitled to
get the balance amount of Rs.1,14,240/- as enhancement under
the head 'disability compensation'.
13. Towards extra nourishment, no amount was awarded by
the Tribunal. So, this Court is inclined to award Rs.4,000/-, as he
was hospitalised for 63 days.
14. The compensation awarded under all other heads seems
to be reasonable and it need not be interfered with.
Amount Amount Difference to
Head of claim awarded by the awarded in be drawn as
Tribunal appeal enhanced
compensation
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Loss of earning Rs.24,000/- Rs.48,000/- Rs.24,000/-
Medical bills as - Rs.33,753/- Rs.33,753/-
per Ext.A4 series
bills
Transportation Rs.1,500/- Rs.4,500/- Rs.3,000/-
expenses
Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- Rs.30,000/- Rs.10,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- Rs.20,000/- Rs.10,000/-
Compensation for Rs.1,14,240/- Rs.2,28,480/- Rs.1,14,240/-
disability
Extra nourishment - Rs.4,000/- Rs.4,000
Total Rs.1,69,740/- Rs.3,68,733/- Rs.1,98,993/-
15. In the result, the appellant is entitled to get enhanced
compensation of Rs.1,98,993/- rounded to Rs.1,99,000/- (Rupees
One lakh ninety nine thousand only).
The 3rd respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation of Rs.1,99,000/- (Rupees One lakh ninety
nine thousand only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date
of petition till the date of deposit (except 175 days of delay in filing
the appeal) before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara,
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. No order as to
costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS
JUDGE
smp
