Kerala High Court
Valsaraj vs Latheef.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. 767 OF 2014
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.06.2013 IN OPMV NO.63 OF 2011 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/S:
VALSARAJ
S/O.PADMANABHAN NAIR, VALIEKKARA MEETHAL HOUSE POST OLAVANNA,
POKKUNNU, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 LATHEEF.M
MOLLAKKANAKATH HOUSE, THANOOR POST, THIRUR MALAPPURAM 676 302
2 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
DIVL.OFFICE, SILVER PLAZA, IG ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673004
BY ADVS.
SRI.Y.JAFAR KHAN
SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
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. 767 of 2014
..2..
SOPHY THOMAS, J.
=====================
M.A.C.A. No. 767 of 2014
========================
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 05th day of April, 2024
This appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P. (MV) No. 63 of 2011
on the file of Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode,
impugning the award on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.
2. The appellant met with a road traffic accident on 17.02.2010 at
03.30 p.m., while he was riding a motorcycle through Eranhipalam -
Karimbanapalam road. He was knocked down by car bearing
registration No. KL-10Z-2180, driven by the 1 st respondent in a rash
and negligent manner. He sustained serious injuries including
fracture of left tibia, left zygomatic arch, left maxillary sinus, left foot
etc, and he was hospitalized for four days. He was a 44 year old
coolie, earning monthly income of Rs.9,000/-. He approached the
Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. But the Tribunal
awarded only Rs.75,6,53/-. Hence this appeal.
..3..
3. The 1st respondent was the owner of the offending car, and the
2nd respondent was its driver and the 3rd respondent was its insurer.
Respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte before the tribunal., The 3 rd
respondent insurer contested the case, but admitted the policy.
4. The appeal was filed against the owner and insurer of the
offending car. They entered appearance through counsel.
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, the learned
Tribunal went wrong in fixing the notional income of the appellant @
Rs.4,000/-, when he was actually earning Rs.9,000/- per month. But,
no evidence was adduced from the side of the appellant to prove his
monthly income. But, relying on the decision Ramachandrappa v.
Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited
[AIR 2011 SC 2951], he was eligible to get his notional income fixed
@ Rs.7,500/-, as the accident was in the year 2010. Learned Tribunal
assessed loss of earning for one month only. The appellant had
suffered fracture on left tibia, left zygomatic arch, left maxillary sinus
and also, left foot, and so this Court is inclined to take loss of earning
..4..
for two months @ Rs.7,500/- per month. So, the appellant is entitled
to get Rs.15,000/-. After deducting Rs.4,000/- already awarded, he is
entitled to get the balance amount of Rs. 11,000/-.
7. The appellant had suffered disability of 5% as seen from
Ext.C1 disability certificate. Learned Tribunal applied multiplicand
of Rs.4,000/-, as it was the monthly notionally fixed by the Tribunal.
We have fixed his notional income @ Rs.7,500/-, and so, the
compensation for 5% disability can be assessed as Rs.63,000/- (7,500
x 12 x 14 x 5%). After deducting Rs.33,600/- already awarded, the
appellant is entitled to get balance of Rs.29,400/-.
8. Towards transportation expenses, learned Tribunal awarded
only Rs.5,00/-. He was taken to two different hospitals on various
occasions, and considering that aspect, this Court is inclined to award
Rs.1,000/- more towards transportation expenses.
9. Towards pain and suffering, this Court is inclined to award
Rs.10,000/- more, considering the nature of injuries suffered, and the
period of hospitalization.
10. Towards loss of amenities, Ext.C1 disability certificate will
show that he was having painful restrictions in squatting, and so, an
..5..
addition of Rs.5000/- is given towards loss of amenities.
11. The compensation awarded under all other heads seems
to be reasonable, and hence needs no modification.
12. The enhanced compensation awarded in this appeal is given
in the table below:-
SL. No Head of claim Amount Amount Difference to be
awarded awarded in drawn as
by the appeal enhanced
Tribunal compensation
1 Loss of 4,000 15,000/- 11,000/-
earnings
2 Loss of 33,600 63,000/- 29,400/-
permanent
disability
3 Transportation 5,00/- 1,500/- 1,000/-
expenses
4 Pain and 20,000/- 10,000/- 10,000/-
suffering
5 Loss of 5,000/- 10,000/- 5,000/-
amenities
Total 56,400/-
13. So the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation of
Rs.56,400/- (11,000 + 29,400 + 1,000 + 10,000 + + 5,000).
14. The 2nd respondent insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation with 8% interest per annum from the date of petition
..6..
till the date of deposit before the 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 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
