Kerala High Court
Rejeesh vs Dileep Kumar on 4 April, 2024
MACA NO. 953 OF 2014
1
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. 953 OF 2014
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 03.07.2012 IN OPMV NO.988 OF 2006
OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , KOTTAYAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
REJEESH
S/O.SUDAN, VAZHUTHUKATTIL HOUSE, VALLAKOM BHAGOM,
PADINJAREKARA, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK.
BY ADV SRI.P.M.NATESAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 DILEEP KUMAR
S/O.CHANDRASEKHARA PANICKER, PERAYIL HOUSE, PERUMCHERY
JUNCTION, CHEMMANATHUKARA, VAIKOM, PIN-686606.
2 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
ERNAKULAM BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
PIN-682011.
BY ADVS.
SRI.E.M.MURUGAN
SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR
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. 953 OF 2014
2
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is at the instance of the petitioner
in OP(MV) No.988 of 2006 on the file of Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, challenging the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The appellant who was a 28 year old man, met
with a road traffic accident, while he was riding a
scooter. He was knocked down by a maruti van bearing
registration No.KL-5S-1167 driven by the 1st
respondent in a rash and negligent manner. He
sustained injuries including fracture of shaft of
femur right and fracture of clavicle right. He was
admitted and treated in hospital for 16 days. He
suffered permanent disability also due to the
injuries suffered in that accident. Though he
approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.3
lakh, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.54,238/-, and
hence this appeal.
MACA NO. 953 OF 2014
3. The 1st respondent is the owner cum driver of
the offending maruti van, and the 2nd respondent is
its insurer. The 2nd respondent admitted the
policy.
4. In the appeal respondents 1 and 2 entered
appearance, and the 2nd respondent/insurer admitted
policy.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/insurer.
6. The main ground urged by the appellant is
that, though he was earning monthly income of
Rs.7,000/-, learned Tribunal fixed his notional
income only @ Rs.3,000/- per month. He was said to
be a computer photo editor, but no documents were
produced to prove his job or income. According to the
appellant, he was eligible to get his notional income
fixed at least @ Rs.5,000/- relying on the decision
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
MACA NO. 953 OF 2014
Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951].
7. Learned Tribunal assessed loss of earning for
three months, considering the nature of injuries
suffered by the appellant. He is entitled to get
Rs.15,000/-, for three months at the rate of
Rs.5,000/- per month. Deducting Rs.6,000/- already
awarded, he is entitled to get the balance amount of
Rs.9,000/-, under the head loss of earning.
8. Towards transportation to the hospital, the
Tribunal awarded only Rs.500/-. He was treated at
CHC, Vaikom, and thereafter at Medical College
Hospital, Kottayam. So towards transportation
expenses, this Court is inclined to award Rs.1,500/-
more, apart from Rs.500/- awarded by the Tribunal.
9. Towards extra nourishment, learned Tribunal
awarded only Rs.500/-. He was hospitalized for 16
days. So this Court is inclined to award Rs.1,600/-,
towards extra nourishment, after deducting Rs.500/-
MACA NO. 953 OF 2014
already awarded, he is entitled to get the balance
amount of Rs.1,100/-.
10. Towards bystander expenses, the Tribunal
awarded only Rs.5,00/-, though the appellant was
hospitalized for 16 days. Learned counsel for the
appellant would submit that, even after discharge he
was in need of a bystander, as he was taking rest at
home. So apart from the amount awarded by the
Tribunal, this Court is inclined to award Rs.2,500/-
more, towards bystander expenses.
11. Towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal
awarded Rs.15,000/- against his claim of Rs.35,000/-.
He had suffered fracture of shaft of femur right and
fracture of clavicle right, and he was hospitalized
for 16 days. So this Court is inclined to award
Rs.5,000/- more, towards pain and suffering.
12. Towards permanent disability, the Tribunal
awarded Rs.24,480/- taking his disability as 4%.
MACA NO. 953 OF 2014
Ext.X1 disability certificate issued by the medical
board will show that he had suffered 5.6% permanent
disability. Learned Tribunal, on the reason that none
of the Doctors in that medical board was examined,
reduced the percentage of disability, and accepted
the disability to the extent of 4% only. Since Ext.X1
disability certificate was issued by a competent
medical board, this Court finds no justification for
reducing the percentage of disability to 4%. This
Court has fixed his notional income @ Rs.5,000/-. The
multiplier applicable is 17, as he was aged 28. So
for 5.6% disability he is eligible to get Rs.57,120/-
[5000x12x17x5.6%]. After deducting Rs.24,480/-
awarded by the Tribunal, he is entitled to get the
balance Rs.32,640/-.
13. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- as
compensation for loss of future earnings. The
compensation for permanent disability will take in
MACA NO. 953 OF 2014
the loss of future earnings also, and so Rs.5,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal, for loss of future earnings
is liable to be deducted.
14. Towards loss of amenities, no amount was seen
awarded by the Tribunal. Ext.X1 disability
certificate issued by the medical board will show
that, the appellant had suffered 5.6% permanent
disability. He was a 28 year old man. So the
disability might have affected his amenities in life
to certain extent. So this Court is inclined to award
Rs.10,000/-, towards loss of amenities.
15. The compensation awarded under all other
heads seems to be reasonable, and hence it needs no
modification.
16. The enhanced compensation awarded in this
appeal is stated in the table below:-
MACA NO. 953 OF 2014
Amount
Amount Amounts
awarded Di erence to be
Head of claim awarded in deducted
by the drawn as enhanced
appeal in appeal
Tribunal compensation
Loss of 15,000/-
6,000/- -- 9,000/-
earnings [5,000x3]
Transportation
500/- 2,000/- -- 1,500/-
expenses
Extra
5,00/- 1,600/- - 1,100/-
nourishment
Bystander
5,00/- 3,000/- - 2,500/-
expenses
Pain and
15,000/- 20,000/- - 5,000/-
su ering
Compensation
57,120/-
for continuing 24,480/
[5,000x - 32,640/-
permanent -
12x17x
disability 5.6%]
Loss future
5,000/- 5,000/-
earnings
Loss of
10,000/- 10,000/-
amenities
TOTAL 5,000/- 61,740/-
MACA NO. 953 OF 2014
17. So the appellant is entitled to get enhanced
compensation of Rs.56,740/- [(9,000 + 1,500 + 1,100 +
2,500 + 5,000 + 32,640 + 10,000)- 5000] towards
enhanced compensation.
18. The 2nd 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 541 days of delay in filing the
appeal) before the Motor Accident 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 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
