Kerala High Court
Sumisha.V.P vs Shamsuddin (Deleted)* on 20 May, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
MACA NO. 2610 OF 2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 22.05.2012 IN OPMV NO.18 OF 2008
OF PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT:
SUMISHA.V.P.
DAYASAGAR, KANTHAKALI PARAMBA, THALAKOLATHUR P.O.,
VIA ATHOLI, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 SHAMSUDDIN (DELETED)*
MUKKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.KARUVANNOOR, NADUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE
673614.
2 SAIFUDDIN
S/O.ABOOBACKER, VELLACHALIL HOUSE, P.O.THIRUTHIYADU,
BALUSSERRY, KOZHIKODE 673612.
3 THE NEW INDIA ASSUARNCE CO.LTD
I.G.ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673001. *(R1 DELETED FROM THE PARTY
ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED
05/12/2017 IN IA 4309/17[IA 2/17] IN MACA 2610/2012)
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH (SC, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA No.2610 of 2012 2
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is at the instance of the
claimant in OP(MV) No.18 of 2008 on the file
of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Kozhikode challenging the award on
the ground of inadequacy of compensation.
2. The appellant/claimant met with a road
traffic accident on 16/1/2007 at 12.45pm, while
she was standing on the road side near Nirmala
Hospital Vellimadukunnu. KL-56-1526 motorcycle
ridden by the 1st respondent in a rash and
negligent manner knocked her down, and she
sustained serious injuries including fracture
of both bones of right leg. She was rushed to
Nirmala Hospital and from there she was
referred to Baby Memorial Hospital. She was
hospitalized for eight days in total. She
approached the Tribunal, claiming compensation
of Rs.4 Lakh, but the Tribunal awarded only
Rs.51,650/-, and hence this appeal.
3. The 1st respondent was the rider of the
offending motorcycle, the 2nd respondent was
its owner, and the 3rd respondent was its
insurer.
4. The 3rd respondent insurer entered
appearance and admitted the policy.
5. Now this Court is called upon to find out
whether there is any irregularity, illegality
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. The learned counsel for the appellant
would submit that the appellant was a 20 year
old BSC Nursing student at the time of
accident. She suffered a lot due to the
injuries sustained in the accident, and she
lost her classes also, as she was not able to
move. So according to the appellant, the
compensation award by the tribunal is too
meager, and hence she is seeking enhancement.
She was hospitalized for eight days in total
out of which four days admission was for
removal of implants.
8. Towards transportation to hospital,
learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.500/-, though
she was admitted in hospital twice. For review
also she might have been attending hospital
even after discharge. So, this Court is
inclined to award Rs.1,000/- more, under the
head transportation to hospital.
9. Towards extra nourishment, learned
Tribunal awarded only Rs.500/-, though the
appellant was hospitalized for 8 days. Since
both bones of her right leg were fractured,
even after discharge she might have been taking
rest at home under special care. So this Court
is inclined to award Rs.1,000/- more, under the
head extra nourishment.
10. Towards treatment expenses, the
appellant produced medical bills for
Rs.40,100/-, but learned tribunal found that
two bills amounting to Rs.3,250/- in total,
towards Anesthesia expenses were not in proper
form. So that amount was deducted from the
total bill amount. Those bills will show that
Rs.3,250/- was paid for Anesthesia expenses,
and no other bills produced by her reflect the
Anesthesia expenses. Since she had undergone
two surgeries one for putting the implant and
the other for removing the same, definitely
Anesthesia might have been given to her twice,
and so this court is inclined to award
Rs.3,250/- accepting those documents.
11. Towards bystander expenses, learned
Tribunal awarded only Rs.800/-i.e. Rs.100 per
day for eight days of hospitalization. Since
the appellant suffered fracture of both bones
of her right leg, even after discharge she
might have been in need of a bystander to
attend her daily affairs. So this Court is
inclined to award Rs.1,200/- more, taking the
period of rest as twenty days in total, instead
of eight days of hospitalization.
12. Towards pain and suffering, this court
is inclined to award Rs.8,000/- more, since the
appellant had suffered fracture of both bones
of her right leg.
13. Learned Tribunal awarded only
Rs.3,000/-, towards loss of amenities. Though
no permanent disability is proved, learned
counsel for the appellant would submit that the
appellant was a 20 year old BSC Nursing
student, and she could not attend her classes
due to the injuries suffered in the accident.
Though she was not earning any income during
that period, considering fracture of both bones
of her right leg, the period of
hospitalization, period of rest, loss of
classes etc., this Court is inclined to award
Rs.5,000/- more, under the head loss of
amenities.
14. The enhanced compensation awarded in this
appeal is stated in the table below:-
Head of Amount Amount Difference to be
claim awarded by awarded in drawn as
the Tribunal appeal enhanced
compensation
Transportatio
500/- 1500/- 1000/-
n to hospital
Extra
500/- 1500/- 1000/-
Nourishment
Treatment
36,850/- 40,100/- 3250/-
expenses
Bystander's
800/- 2,000/- 1,200/-
expenses
Pain and
10,000/- 18,000/- 8,000/-
sufferings
Loss of
3,000/- 8,000/- 5,000/-
amenities
TOTAL 19,450/-
15. So the appellant is entitled to get
enhanced compensation of Rs.19,450/- with 7%
interest per annum.
16. The 3rd respondent/insurer admitted the
policy and they are not challenging the finding
of the tribunal that they are liable to
compensate the appellant.
17. The 3rd respondent/insurer is directed
to deposit the enhanced compensation of
Rs.19,450/- with 7% interest per annum, from
the date of petition till the date of
deposit (excluding 803 days of delay in filing
the appeal) 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 her liabilities, if any,
towards Tax, balance court fee, legal benefit
fund etc.
The appeal is allowed to the extent as
above, and no order is made as to costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS,
JUDGE
ska
