Kerala High Court
National Insurance Company Limited vs Shaji M on 27 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1946
MACA NO. 2737 OF 2016
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 21.04.2016 IN OPMV NO.697 OF 2015 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
KOZHIKODE, REP.BY THE MANAGER,KOCHI
REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD,ERNAKULAM-35.
BY ADV SRI.E.M.JOSEPH
RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:
SHAJI M
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O VELAYUDHAN NAIR,
KATTADATH,VENGORATHTHAZHATH HOUSE,
P.O.CHELANNUR,(VIA) KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE-673616.
BY ADVS.
SABIN BABU
AVM.SALAHUDIN
RAKHI RAMACHANDRAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 27.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA No. 2737 of 2016
2
SOPHY THOMAS, J.
=====================
MACA. No. 2737 of 2016
========================
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2024
This appeal is at the instance of the 3rd respondent insurer in
OP(M.V) 697/2015 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Kozhikode, impugning the award, as it is excessive in nature.
2. On 12.02.2015, at about 11.30 pm, while the respondent/
claimant was driving a pickup van through Chalannur- Koorachundu
Road, KL-11-U-8268 bus, driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and
negligent manner, dashed against that pickup van, and he sustained
serious injuries including Grade 3B open comminuted fracture patella
and Grade 1 open fracture of tibial metaphysis. He was admitted, and
treated at MIMS Hospital, Kozhikode. He suffered permanent disability
also, due to the injuries suffered in that accident. He approached the
Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. But, learned Tribunal
awarded Rs.6,62,800/- even exceeding their claim, against which the
insurer has come up with this appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for
the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant is assailing the award, mainly
on the ground that the compensation for disability awarded by the
Tribunal is on the higher side. According to them, Ext.C1 disability
certificate will not show any injury suffered by the respondent, or any
persisting disability due to the injuries suffered. So, according to them
learned Tribunal ought not have admitted that document, to find his
disability as 20%. Moreover, without assigning any reason, 50% was
added to his monthly income, towards future prospects.
5. On going through Ext.C1 disability certificate, true that, it does
not contain the details of the injury or the details of the persisting
disability, if any. Simply, 20% disability was noted, and that document
does not bear even the seal of the doctor, or of the institution, to which
that doctor was attached. So, this Court is inclined to accept the
argument of the appellant, that Ext.C1 document was not sufficient to
find disability of 20% for the respondent. But, on going through Ext.A4
discharge summary, it could be seen that, the respondent had suffered
Grade 3B open comminuted patella, with loss of pieces of patella, and
Grade 1 open fracture tibial metaphysis. Wound debridement was
done, and partial patellectomy was also done, as the inferior core of
the patella was severely comminuted, beyond reconstruction. Since the
injury was on his patella, and partial patellectomy also was done, it
may result in permanent disability to certain extent, this Court is
inclined to take his disability as 15%.
6. The monthly income of the respondent was taken by the
Tribunal as Rs.10,000/-. That amount seems to be reasonable, based
on the decision Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951]. But
learned Tribunal is not justified in adding 50% for future prospects. So
taking his monthly income as Rs.10,000/- and disability as 15%,
compensation for disability can be assessed as Rs.2,88,000/- (10,000
x 12 x 16 x 15/100). The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,76,000/- under the
head disability. So, an amount of Rs.2,88,000/- is in excess of the
eligible amount.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that, though
they produced Ext.A3 series medical bills for an amount of Rs.82,722/-
and it was not disputed by the insurer also, that amount was not
awarded by the Tribunal. Ext.A3 series medical bills amounting to
Rs.82,722/- is not disputed by the appellant, and hence, the
respondent/claimant is entitled to get that amount, towards medical
expenses. By adjusting that amount from the excess amount to be
deduced, the balance amount which the appellant can deduct from the
compensation amount is Rs.2,05,278/-
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, out of the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal, Rs.3,31,400/- was
deposited by them, before the Tribunal. If so while depositing the
balance, they can deduct Rs.2,05,278/- from the award amount.
9. The appellant is directed to deposit the balance amount with
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
deposit, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. The learned Tribunal shall disburse that amount
to the respondent/claimant, after deducting the liabilities, if any,
towards Tax, balance court fee, and legal benefit fund.
The appeal is allowed to the extent above, and no order as to
costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS
JUDGE
RMV
