Kerala High Court
Ravikrishnan vs Cleetus.P.C on 7 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1946
MACA NO. 1761 OF 2013
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 24.01.2013 IN OPMV NO.140 OF 2012
OF PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/ PETITIONER:
RAVIKRISHNAN
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR, 312, VIKAS, THRIKKALANGODE
PANCHAYATH, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT
KOKKAPPILLI HOUSE, P.O.KALLUTUTTI, OMASSERY, CALICUT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE
SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE VILANGATTIL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 CLEETUS.P.C
10/497, PARAPATTU HOUSE, MAIKKAVU P.O., THAMARASSERY,
KOZHIKODE - 673 573.
2 K.SHAJU
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.JOSEPH, KUMARAMKUDIYIL HOUSE, P.O. MAIKKAVU,
VELIMUNDA (VIA), THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE TALUK - 673
573.
3 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
1ST FLOOR, VISHNU BUILDING, K.P. VALLON ROAD,
KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI - 682 020.
BY ADV SRI.K.B.RAMANAND
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 1761 OF 2013 2
JUDGMENT
This appeal is at the instance of the
claimant in OP(MV) No.140 of 2012 on the file
of Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Kozhikode impugning the award on the ground of
inadequacy of compensation.
2. On 1/8/2011 at 3.30 pm the
appellant/claimant met with a road traffic
accident while he was riding a motorcycle.
KL-57/6847 car driven by the 2nd respondent in
a rash and negligent manner dashed against an
autorickshaw and due to that impact the
autorickshaw hit against the motorcycle of the
appellant/claimant and he was thrown down and
sustained serious injuries including fracture
to right acetabulum and dislocation of right
hip joint. He was admitted and treated in Baby
Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode for 14 days and
underwent two surgeries. He was a 35 year old
medical representative earning monthly income
of Rs.16,000/-. He approached the Tribunal
claiming compensation of Rs.3 lakh. But the
Tribunal awarded only Rs.1,21,350/-, and hence
this appeal.
3. The 3rd respondent-insurer admitted the
accident as well as the policy of the offending
car. But according to them, the accident
occurred due to the negligence from the side of
the rider of the motorcycle.
4. In the appeal also, the 3rd
respondent-insurer entered appearance through
counsel and admitted the policy. But according
to them, the amount awarded by the tribunal is
just and reasonable, and hence no modification
is needed.
5. Now this Court is called upon to answer
whether 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. Though the 3rd respondent had taken up a
contention that the accident occurred due to
the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle,
learned tribunal found that the accident
occurred solely due to the negligence of the
driver of the car. Exhibit A5 final report was
also against the driver of the car, for his
rash and negligent driving. So there is no
scope for any challenge with respect to the
negligence of the 2nd respondent, which caused
the accident.
8. Now coming to the quantum of compensation
awarded by the tribunal, learned counsel for
the appellant would submit that the appellant
was a 35 year old medical representative
earning monthly income of Rs.16,000/-. But
learned Tribunal did not award any amount
towards loss of income. It is true that no
documents whatsoever were produced by him
before the tribunal to prove his job or income.
Learned counsel for the appellant would rely on
the decision Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited
[AIR 2011 SC 2951], to say that, even a coolie
worker was eligible to get his notional income
fixed @ Rs.8,000/- per month, in the year 2011.
So even in the absence of any evidence to prove
the job of the appellant as a medical
representative or to prove his income
therefrom, this Court is inclined to fix his
notional income @ Rs.8,000/- per month.
9. Ext.A2 wound certificate and Ext.A7
discharge summary will show that the appellant
had suffered fracture to his right acetabulum
and dislocation of right hip joint, and he was
admitted in hospital for 14 days and during
that period he had undergone two surgeries
also. So even after discharge from hospital, he
might not have been able to resume his job
immediately. So this Court is inclined to
assess his loss of earning for a period of
three months as claimed by him in the original
claim petition. At the rate of Rs.8,000/- per
month, he is entitled to get Rs.24,000/-
[8,000x3] as compensation for loss of earning.
10. Towards pain and suffering, learned
Tribunal awarded only Rs.20,000/- against his
claim of Rs.1 lakh. Considering the nature of
injuries suffered by the appellant, the period
of hospitalization and the surgical procedures
undergone, this court is inclined to award
Rs.15,000/- more, under the head pain and
suffering.
11. Towards loss of amenities, learned
Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- alone against his
claim of Rs.25,000/-. The appellant was a 35
year old man and he suffered fracture of right
acetabulum and dislocation of right hip joint.
It is true that no document is there to show
that he had suffered any permanent disability
due to the injuries suffered in the accident.
But even then considering the fact that he had
suffered fracture of right acetabulum and
dislocation of right hip joint, it may have
some adverse impact on his amenities in life.
So this Court is inclined to award Rs.10,000/-
more, under the head loss of amenities.
12. The compensation awarded under all other
heads seems to be reasonable, and hence it
needs no modification.
13. The enhanced compensation awarded in this
appeal is stated in the table given below:-
Amount Amount
Head of claim Difference to be
awarded by awarded in
drawn as enhanced
the Tribunal appeal compensation
Loss of earning - 24,000/- 24,000/-
Pain and
20,000/- 35,000/- 15,000/-
suffering
Loss of
10,000/- 20,000/- 10,000/-
amenities
TOTAL 49,000/-
14. So the appellant is entitled to get
enhanced compensation of Rs.49,000/- with 7%
interest per annum.
15. The 3rd respondent/insurer is directed
to deposit the enhanced compensation of
Rs.49,000/- with 7% interest per annum, from
the date of petition till the date of
deposit, before the Principal Motor Accidents
Claim Tribunal, Kozhikode, 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, legal benefit fund etc.
The appeal is allowed to the extent as
above, with proportionate costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS,
JUDGE
ska
