Kerala High Court
Krishna Kumar vs Anil Kumar on 4 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946
MACA NO. 2346 OF 2013
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 20.03.2013 IN OPMV NO.1077 OF 2006 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONER:
1 KRISHNA KUMAR
S/O. BHASKARA PANIKKAR, AGED 57 YEARS "SIVAGANGA",
MUHAMMA P.O ALAPPUZHA. *(EXPIRED) * APPELLANTS 2 TO 4
IMPLEADED
2 ADDL.B.MAYADEVI,
W/O. LATE B.KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT
'SIVAGANGA' CHARAMANGALAM, MUHAMMA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 525
3 ADDL.VISHNU KRISHNA KUMAR
S/O. LATE B. KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT '
SIVAGANGA' CHARAMANGALAM, MUHAMMA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 525.
4 ADDL.VEENA KRISHNA KUMAR
D/O. LATE B.KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT
'SIVAGANGA', CHARAMANGALAM, MUHAMMA, ALAPPUZHA - 688
525. ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 AS
PER ORDER DATED 21/1/2022 IN I.A 1/2022 IN MACA
2346/2013.
BY ADV MOHAN C.MENON
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 ANIL KUMAR
S/O.SASIDHARAN NAIR, "KOCHUMATTATHIL" THANNEERMUKKAM,
ALAPPUZHA.
2 M.S. SREEKUMARI
W/O.SASIDHARAN NAIR, "KOCHUMATTATHIL" THANNEERMUKKAM,
ALAPPUZHA.
3 THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, NSS UNION BUILDING,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV SMT.T.C.SOWMIAVATHY
MACA NO.2346 OF 2013 2
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NO.2346 OF 2013 3
JUDGMENT
This appeal was filed by the claimant in OP(MV)
No.1077 of 2006 on the file of Additional Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha challenging
the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal as it was on the lower side.
2. On 4/6/2006 at 7.15 pm, the original
appellant/petitioner met with a road traffic
accident at Cherthala. While he was standing on the
bus stop KL-4/T-6880 motorcycle, ridden by the 2nd
respondent in a rash and negligent manner, knocked
him down, and he sustained injuries thereby. Though
he was admitted and treated at hospital for one day
he suffered hearing loss of 20% for his right ear
due to the injuries suffered in the accident. He
approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of
Rs.1,25,000/-,but the Tribunal awarded only
Rs.29,489/-, and hence this appeal.
3. The 1st respondent was the rider of the
offending motorcycle. The 2nd respondent was its
owner, and the 3rd respondent was its insurer.
Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte before the
Tribunal. The 3rd respondent 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, and admitted the policy.
5. Pending appeal, the original appellant died.
His legal heirs were impleaded as additional
appellants 2 to 4.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned counsel for the 3rd respondent insurer.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants would
submit that, the original appellant Sri.Krishna
Kumar was working as a Panchayat Secretary during
the period of accident, drawing monthly income of
Rs.10,000/-. But no documents were produced by him
before the Tribunal to prove his job or income. So
the Tribunal fixed his notional income
@ Rs.3,000/-. But in the appeal, the appellants
produced Annexures 1 and 2 documents to show that
the appellant was on commuted leave for the period
5/6/2006 till 30/6/2006 and in the year 2011, by
pay revision, his pay was fixed in the higher scale
as Rs.30,610/-. That pay fixation took place after
5 years of the accident, and he had no case that
after the commuted leave for 26 days, he had to
discontinue his job, resulting in loss of salary.
Since there is nothing to show that he had lost his
salary for any period due to the accident, this
Court is not inclined to award any amount under the
head loss of earnings. But Annexure-I document
shows that he was on commuted leave for 26 days due
to the injuries suffered in the accident. He could
have utilized that leave period for any other
purpose, of his choice, if this accident had not
occurred. Considering that aspect, for loss of
commuted leave for 26 days, this Court is inclined
to award a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/-.
8. Towards bystander expenses, learned Tribunal
awarded only Rs.100, as he was hospitalized only
for a single day. Annexure-I document shows that,
after the accident, he was on leave for a period of
26 days. He suffered injury to his right pinna,
which resulted in hearing loss to the extent of
20%. So this Court is inclined to award bystander
expenses @ Rs.150/- per day for a month, which will
come to Rs.4,500/-. After deducting Rs.100/- only
paid, he is entitled to get the balance amount of
Rs.4,400/-.
9. Towards pain and suffering, an addition of
Rs.5,000/- is awarded, as he suffered injuries to
his right pinna for which 26 stitches were applied
as seen from Ext.A8 document.
10. As the original appellant was permanently
employed as Panchayat Secretary even according to
his own case, and he worked in that capacity till
his retirement, and there is nothing to show that
he suffered any loss of salary due to the injuries
suffered in the accident, till he retired, hearing
loss to the extent of 20%, never affected his
earning capacity. His retirement age was 55. Even
after retirement, he would have been gainfully
employed in some other avocations, if he was
perfectly alright physically. Ext.C1 disability
certificate shows that he had suffered permanent/
partial disability of 20% due to hearing loss of
the right ear. But it is not mentioned that, the
said disability was with respect to his whole body.
So learned Tribunal is justified in accepting his
disability to the extent of 10%. After retirement
at the age of 55, this Court is taking a notional
income of Rs.3,000/- for the appellant. The
multiplier applicable is 11, as he was aged 55 at
the time of retirement. But he died in the year
2018, so the multiplier to be applied is only 7. So
the compensation for disability after his
retirement can be calculated as Rs.
25,200/-(3,000x12x7x10%). After deducting Rs.15,000
already paid. He was entitled to get Rs.10,200/- as
compensation for permanent/partial disability of
10%.
11. As already stated the original appellant
died, and additional appellants 2 to 4 are the wife
and children of the deceased original appellant, so
they are entitled to share the enhanced
compensation equally.
12. The compensation awarded under all other
heads seems to be reasonable, and hence it needs no
modification.
13. The enhanced compensation awarded in this
appeal is stated in the table below:-
Amount
Amount Amounts Difference to
Head of awarded
awarded deducted be drawn as
claim by the
in appeal in appeal enhanced
Tribunal
compensation
Loss of
commuted
- 5,000/- - 5,000/-
leave for
26 days
Hospital &
100/- 4,500/-
Bystander - 4,400/-
(150x30)
expenses
Pain and
9,000/- - 5,000/-
suffering 4,000/-
compensatio
n for 25,200/-
continuing
15,000/- - 10,200/-
or (3000x7x
permanent 12x10%)
disability
TOTAL Rs.24,600/-
14. So the appellant is entitled to get
enhanced compensation of Rs.24,600/- towards
enhanced compensation.
15. The 3rd respondent/insurer is directed to
deposit the enhanced compensation with 7.5%
interest per annum, from the date of petition till
the date of deposit (excluding 159 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 the award
amount to additional appellants 2 to 4, in equal
share 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,
ska JUDGE
