Kerala High Court
Prashob V vs Bimalraj on 4 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
TH
TUESDAY, THE 4
DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1946
MACA NO. 1165 OF 2014
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 31.10.2013 IN OPMV NO.79 OF 2005 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
RASHOB V.,
P
S/O. K.P.BALAN, SHOBHANAM, KAKKADAVATH HOUSE,
P.O.MOOZHIKKARA, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.V.BINOY RAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1
BIMALRAJ,
KUNIYIL HOUSE, MANJERI P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 121.
2
P.T.MANOJAN,
S/O. CHATHUKUTTY, PADINHARETHARANTAKUNNUMMAL, PUTHUR,
P.O.CHENDAYAD, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 692.
3
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
KANNUR, PIN-670 003.
4
JAYASEELAN P.,
PURAKANDIYIL HOUSE, P.O.THIRUVANGAD,
THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 101.
MACA 1165 of 2014 2
5
NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 101.
ADV SMT.DEEPA GEORGE, SC, FOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
ADV.SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN, SC, NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
THIS
MOTOR
ACCIDENT
CLAIMS
APPEAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY
EARD
H ON
04.06.2024,
THE
COURT
ON
THE
SAME
DAY
DELIVERED
THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA 1165 of 2014 3
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is at the instance of the claimant in
OP(MV)No.79 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, challenging the awardon the
ground of inadequacy of compensation.
2. On 07.12.2003, while the appellant wastravelling
in an autorickshaw, KL-10/P-7182 bus driven by the 2nd
respondentinarashandnegligentmanner,dashedagainst
the autorickshaw, whereby the appellant suffered
comminuted fracture of both bones of right forearm with
compartment syndrome, and he was hospitalised for 56
daysintotalandheunderwentfoursurgeries.Hewasa22
year old man working in a workshop, earning monthly
income of Rs.4,500/-. He suffered much loss physically
andfinancially due totheinjuriessufferedintheaccident.
He approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/-, but the Tribunal awarded only
MACA 1165 of 2014 4
Rs.1,80,100/-. Hence this appeal.
3.The1strespondentwastheowneroftheoffending
bus,2ndrespondentwasitsdriverandthe3rdrespondent
was its Insurer. Respondents 4 and 5 are the
owner-cum-driver and Insurer respectively of the
autorickshaw, in which the appellant was travelling. The
3rd respondent-Insurer admitted the accident as well as
theInsurancePolicyoftheoffendingbus.LearnedTribunal
found that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligentdrivingof thebusbythe2ndrespondentandso
the 3rd respondent-Insurer was liable to indemnify the
owner of the bus, and thereby to compensate the
appellant.
4. According to the 3rd respondent-Insurer, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable and so, it needs no modification.
5. Now this Court is called upon to answer whether
MACA 1165 of 2014 5
there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the
impugned award, warranting interference by this Court.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-Insurer.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that thoughExt.A8 SalaryCertificatewasproducedbythe
appellantbefore theTribunal toshowthat hewasearning
monthly income of Rs.4,500/-, learned Tribunal fixed his
notionalincome only@Rs.4,000/-.Itisseenthatlearned
Tribunal, taking into account Ext.A8 and the attending
circumstances, fixed his monthly income as Rs.4,000/-.
Even relying on the decision Ramachandrappa v.
Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance
Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951], the notional
income fixed for the appellant @ Rs.4,000/-, in the year
2003 seems to be reasonable and it needs no interference.
8. Learned Tribunal assessed loss of earning for six
MACA 1165 of 2014 6
months @ Rs.4,000/-. The appellant was hospitalized for
56daysandheunderwentfoursurgeries.Hehadsuffered
comminuted fracture of both bones of right forearm with
compartment syndrome. Since that fracture was on his
rightforearm,hemightnothavebeenabletocontinuehis
job as a mechanic at least for a period of 9 months. So,
this Court is inclined to award Rs.12,000/- as
enhancement towards loss of earning for extra three
months (4,000x3).
9. Towards damage to clothing,thisCourt isinclined
toawardRs.300/-, sincenoamountwasseenawardedby
the Tribunal under that head.
10. For extra nourishment, learned Tribunalawarded
only Rs.6,000/-. It has come out in evidence that the
appellant was hospitalised for 56 days and he was
compelledto takerestatleastfor9monthswithoutgoing
for any job.So,this Courtisinclined toawardRs.2,000/-
MACA 1165 of 2014 7
more under the head 'extra nourishment'.
11. Towards pain and suffering, learned Tribunal
awarded Rs.40,000/- against his claim of Rs.50,000/-.
Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the
appellant, the period of hospitalisation and the disability
also sufferedbytheappellantduetotheinjuriessuffered,
this Court is inclinedtoawardRs.5,000/-more under the
head 'pain and suffering'.
12. No amount was seen awarded by the Tribunal
under the head lossof amenities.Theappellant wasa 22
year oldman andhe suffered10%disabilityasseenfrom
Ext.X2 Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board.
Thecomminutedfracturesufferedbytheappellantwason
his right forearm. So, this Court is inclined to award
Rs.15,000/- under the head 'loss of amenities'.
13.Thecompensationawardedunder allotherheads
seems to be reasonable and hence it needs no
MACA 1165 of 2014 8
modification.
Head of claim mount
A mount
A ifference to
D
awarded by awarded in be drawn as
the Tribunal appeal enhanced
compensation
Loss of earning Rs.24,000/- Rs.36,000/- Rs.12,000/-
amage to
D .... Rs.300/- Rs.300/-
clothing
Extra nourishment Rs.6,000/- Rs.8,000/- Rs.2,000/-
Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/- Rs.45,000/- Rs.5,000/-
Loss of amenities .... Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.34,300/-
14. In the result, the appellant is entitled to get
enhanced compensation of Rs.34,300/-.
15.The3rd respondent-Insurerisdirected todeposit
enhanced compensation of Rs.34,300/- (Rupees Thirty
Four Thousand Three Hundred only), with interest @ 8%
per annum, from the date of petition till the date of
deposit, (excluding 87 days of delay in filing theappeal),
before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery,
MACA 1165 of 2014 9
withinaperiodoftwomonthsfromthedateofreceiptofa
copyofthisjudgment.LearnedTribunalshalldisbursethat
amount to the appellant after deducting the liabilities, if
any, towards tax, balance court fee, legal benefit fund etc.
The appeal is allowedtotheextent asaboveand no
order is made as to costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS
JUDGE
DSV/-
