Kerala High Court
Appunni@Pundankutty vs Faisal Babu on 9 February, 2024
Author: Mary Joseph
Bench: Mary Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 20TH MAGHA, 1945
MACA NO. 437 OF 2013
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 880/2007 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI DATED 11.10.2011
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
APPUNNI@PUNDANKUTTY
S/O.CHATHUTTY,CHERUTHODI
HOUSE,KOLATHUPARAMBU.P.O,OTHUKKUNGAL,KOTTAKKAL,MALAPPUR
AM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA
SRI.P.V.JEEVESH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 FAISAL BABU
S/O.AHAMMEDKUTTY,MOOTTAPARAMBAN HOUSE,
P.O.OTHUKKUNGAL,(DRIVER),PIN-676 528.
2 SULAIMAN
S/O.ABOOBACKER,PNIDIYATHIL HOUSE,
P.O.KURUVA,KALPAKANCHERI(VIA),(OWNER),PIN-676 551.
3 M/s.NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD
BRANCH OFFICE,IST FLOOR,TARIFF BAZAR,OPP:TOWN
HALL,TIRUR.P.O,TIRUR-676 101.
R3 BY ADV LAL K.JOSEPH, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 09.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. No. 437 of 2013
-:2:-
MARY JOSEPH, J.
-----------------------
M.A.C.A. No. 437 of 2013
-----------------------
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2024
JUDGMENT
This appeal is originated from an award passed by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Manjeri on 11.10.2011 in OP(MV)
No.880/2007. The appellant is the petitioner before the Tribunal
who sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred at
3.30 p.m. on 01.06.2007 at Chuzhali. The Tribunal has awarded
`97,771/- as compensation payable alongwith interest at the rate
of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Petition
till the date of realisation. Tribunal has also awarded
proportionate costs. The 3 rd respondent insurer of the offending
vehicle was directed to deposit the above sum in favour of the
petitioner.
2. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation stood
awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner has approached this
Court in the appeal on hand. Sri.K.Shibli Naha, the learned
counsel for the appellant has contended that Tribunal has
awarded only meagre sums as compensation under various
heads. According to him, the monthly income fixed by the
Tribunal was `3,000/- and therefore, the compensation assessed
for loss of earning and disability fall on the lower side. The
learned counsel canvassed for re-fixation of the monthly income
on the basis of the monthly income fixed by the Apex Court in
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co.Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236]. The learned counsel
has also contended that compensation stood awarded by the
Tribunal towards bystander expenses, damages to clothing,
transportation expenses, extra nourishment, pain and suffering,
loss of amenities and enjoyments in life and permanent disability
are also on the lower side and interference is called for to modify
those. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was a
manual labourer and he claimed to have a monthly income of
`10,000/- at the relevant time of the motor accident. According
to him, the Tribunal had fixed the monthly income notionally as
`3,000/-. It is contended by the learned counsel that the motor
accident being occurred in the year 2007, having due regard to
the cost of living and price index prevalent then, the Tribunal
ought to have taken a higher sum as monthly income.
3. The learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent has contended
that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable sums as
compensation under various heads on the basis of the evidence
on record and thus canvassed for maintaining the impugned
award.
4. This Court notices that `3,000/- fixed by the Tribunal as
monthly income is on the lower side. The petitioner being a
manual labourer, his monthly income is not liable to be certified
by anyone. The motor accident being occurred in the year 2007,
this Court finds it appropriate to modify the monthly income as
`6,000/-.
5. From the medical documents on record it is found that
the petitioner sustained compression fracture L1 in the motor
accident and was treated as inpatient for 7 days in a hospital at
Manjeri. The Tribunal has awarded compensation for loss of
earning for 3 months. Being compression fracture of L1, this
Court finds the period taken by the Tribunal as insufficient and is
inclined to take 4 months. When calculation of compensation is
done on the basis of `6,000/-, the re-fixed monthly income and
period of four months, `24,000/- is found payable. `9,000/-
being the sum stood awarded by the Tribunal as compensation
towards loss of earning and `4,500/- towards partial loss of
earning, `10,500/- (`24,000/- - `13,500/-) is payable to the
petitioner as additional compensation.
6. As compensation towards bystander expenses, the
Tribunal has awarded only `700/- and it being highly
unreasonable, this Court is inclined to modify it to `4,000/- and
therefore, the petitioner will get `3,300/- as additional
compensation. As compensation towards damages to clothing,
`750/- more is awarded. As compensation towards
transportation expenses, `250/- being the sum stood awarded by
the Tribunal, this Court awards `3,000/- and therefore, the
petitioner will get `2,750/- as additional compensation.
7. The Tribunal failed to grant any sum as compensation
towards extra nourishment and this Court finds it reasonable to
award `2,000/-, the sum claimed by the petitioner itself as
compensation. As compensation towards pain and suffering the
Tribunal has awarded `5,000/- and that being low and
inadequate, this Court is inclined to award `20,000/- in excess.
The Tribunal failed to award any sum as compensation towards
discomforts and inconveniences in life and therefore this Court
awards `20,000/- as compensation under that head.
8. Ext.X1 is a certificate where 15% was assessed by the
Medical Board as permanent disability of the petitioner. The
Tribunal had taken 15% itself for calculation of compensation.
Since the monthly income was refixed as `6,000/-, there would
be substantial variance in the quantum of compensation payable
towards permanent disability. `1,51,200/- (`6,000/- x 12 x 14 x
15/100) is arrived at as payable in the fresh calculation.
`75,600/- awarded by the Tribunal when adjusted against the
sum arrived at now, petitioner will get `75,600/- as additional
compensation.
9. In the above manner of calculation afresh, petitioner will
get `1,34,900/- (`10,500/- + `3,300/- + `750/- + `2,750/- +
`2,000/- + `20,000/- + `20,000/- + `75,600/-) (Rupees One
lakh thirty four thousand and nine hundred only) as additional
compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from
the date of filing of the Original Petition till the date of
realisation. 3rd respondent/insurer shall pay the additional
compensation with interest fixed as above, within a period of two
months from the date on which a certified copy of this judgment
is received. Disbursal of the sum in favour of the petitioner shall
be in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in
Circular No.03/2019 dated 06.09.2019.
M.A.C.A stands allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH,
JUDGE.
ttb
