Kerala High Court
Muhammed Shakkeer M vs Sudheesh M on 5 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
MACA NO. 618 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2015 IN OPMV NO.463 OF 2013 OF DISTRICT
COURT & SESSIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD
APPELLANT/S:
MUHAMMED SHAKKEER M.
AGED 22 YEARS
NO EMPLOYMENT, S/O. MUHAMMEDKUNHI HAJI A.P., BAITHUL MINAR,
OLAVARA, TRIKARIPUR P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 350.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.M.ANTO
SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SUDHEESH M.
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O. JANARDHANAN K., DRIVER, KANKOKKARAN HOUSE, NEAR THAYINERI
MUCHILOTT, ANNUR P.O.-670 307.
2 DINOOP M.P.
S/O. BHASKARAN, BUSINESS, "BHASURAM", ANCHAMPEEDIKA,
P.O.MOTTAMMAL, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 331.
3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
KANNUR.
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.MEENA JOHN
SRI.VIJU THOMAS
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA. No. 618 of 2016
..2..
SOPHY THOMAS, J.
=====================
M.A.C.A. No. 618 of 2016
========================
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 05th day of April, 2024
This appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P. (MV) No. 463 of
2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod,
impugning the award on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.
2. The appellant met with a road traffic accident on 25.10.2012,
at 06.45 p.m., while he was pillion riding a motorcycle through the
National Highway proceeding to Mandoor. KL-13R-1677 bus driven
by the 1st respondent, in a rash and negligent manner dashed against
the motorcycle and the appellant was thrown down, and he sustained
..3..
serious injuries including comminuted displaced subtrochanteric
fracture of right femur. He was admitted and treated in Pariyaram
Medical College Hospital for 16 days. He approached the Tribunal
claiming compensation of Rs.2,81,000/-. But the Tribunal awarded
only only Rs.1,35,000/-. Hence this appeal.
3. The 1st respondent was the driver of the offending bus. The
2nd respondent was its owner, and the 3 rd respondent was its insurer.
Respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte before the Tribunal. The 3 rd
respondent contested the case, but admitted the policy.
4. In the appeal, respondents 1 and 2 remained absent though
service was complete on them. The 3 rd respondent entered
appearance through counsel, and admitted the policy.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel
for the 3rd respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant is assailing the award
mainly on the ground that the notional income taken by the Tribunal
was arbitrarily low. The appellant was working as a salesman in a
..4..
textile shop, earning monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. He would argue
that the appellant was eligible to get his notional income fixed
@ Rs.8,500/-, as per the decision Ramachandrappa v. Manager,
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011
SC 2951], as the accident was in the year 2002. Since his claim was
only Rs.6,000/-, this Court is inclined to fix his notional income @
Rs.6,000/-.
7. Learned Tribunal assessed loss of earning for six months
@ Rs.4,000/- only. When loss of income is assessed for six
months @ Rs.6,000/- per month, he is entitled to get Rs.36,000/-.
So he is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.12,000/- after
deducting Rs.24,000/- already awarded.
8. Towards permanent disability, though no certificate was
produced by the appellant, learned Tribunal accepted his
disability as 5%, finding that the appellant had difficulty to walk
and to do normal work. No challenge is made by the insurance
..5..
company against the disability of 5% taken by the Tribunal. The
multiplier applicable is 18 as he was aged only 19 years. So the
compensation for permanent disability taking his monthly
income @ Rs.6,000/- can be assessed as Rs.64,800/- (6,000 x 12
x 18 x 5%). After deducting Rs.43,200/- already awarded, the
appellant is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.21,600/-.
9. Towards bystander expenses, learned Tribunal awarded
only Rs.3,000/-. Since the accident was in the year 2012 and the
appellant was hospitalized for 16 days, this Court is inclined to
give an addition of Rs.1,000/- towards bystander expenses.
10. Towards pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, this
Court is inclined to award Rs.10,000/- each as enhancement,
considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization, and
also the permanent disability affecting his normal life.
11. The compensation awarded under all other heads seems
to be reasonable, and hence needs no modification.
..6..
12. The enhanced compensation awarded in this appeal is given
in the table below:-
SL. No Head of Amount Amount Difference to be
claim awarded awarded in drawn as
by the appeal enhanced
Tribunal compensation
1 Loss of 24,000/- 36,000/- 12,000/-
earnings
2 Loss of 43,200/- 64,800/- 21,600/-
permanent
disability
3 Bystander 3,000/- 4,000/- 1,000/-
expenses
4 Pain and 20,000/- 30,000/- 10,000/-
suffering
5 Loss of 8,000/- 18,000/- 10,000/-
amenities
Total 54,600/-
13. So the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation of
Rs.54,600/- (12,000 + 21,600 +1,000 + 10,000 + 10,000).
14. The 3rd respondent insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation with 8% interest per annum from the date of petition
till the date of deposit before the Tribunal concerned within a period
..7..
of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Learned Tribunal shall disburse the award amount to the appellant
after deducting the liabilities, if any, of the appellant towards Tax,
balance court fee and legal benefit fund.
The appeal is allowed to the extent as above and no order as to
costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS
JUDGE
RMV
