Kerala High Court
M.N. Jagadeesh vs K.K. Sunny on 22 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2024 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1946
MACA NO. 26 OF 2014
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.02.2013 IN OPMV NO.845 OF 2006
OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL THRISSUR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
M.N. JAGADEESH
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O.NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT MULLASSERY HOUSE,
ANANDAPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
SRI.A.R.NIMOD
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 K.K. SUNNY
RESIDING AT KALAMBATH HOUSE, PACHALIPURAM P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 308.
2 ARISH
S/O.ASSIZ, RESIDING AT CHERUMPALA HOUSE, ACHPARANDA,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 001.
3 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
P.B.NO.6, ALENGADAN BUILDINGS, TANA, IRINJALAKUDA,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 121.
BY ADV SMT.S.JAYASREE
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 26 OF 2014 2
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is at the instance of the
claimant in OP(MV) No.845 of 2006 on the file
of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Thrissur impugning the award on the
ground of inadequacy of compensation.
2. The appellant met with a road traffic
accident on 22/2/2006 at 8.30 pm while he was
riding a motorcycle through
Anandapuram-Vallakunnu public road. He was
knocked down by a JCB bearing registration No.
KL-8/N 527, driven by the 2nd respondent in a
rash and negligent manner. He sustained serious
injuries including fracture of shaft of femur
middle third, and fracture of malleolus also.
He was 27 years old at the time of accident and
was working as a skilled fabricator, earning
monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. Due to the
accident, he suffered disability to the extent
of 7%, which was permanent in nature. He
approached the Tribunal claiming compensation
of Rs.2,20,000/-. But learned Tribunal awarded
only Rs.1,07,800/-, against which he has
preferred this appeal.
3. The 1st respondent was the owner of the
JCB, 2nd respondent was its driver and 3rd
respondent was its Insurer. The 3rd
respondent-Insurer entered appearance through
counsel and admitted the Policy.
4. 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.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant
and learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant
contended that the appellant was a skilled
worker, as he was working as an aluminum
fabricator. Though he was earning monthly
income of Rs.6,000/-, the Tribunal fixed his
notional income @ Rs.3,000/-, which is on the
lower side. Even going by the decision
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC
2951], even a coolie worker was eligible to get
his notional income fixed @ Rs.5,500/- in the
year 2006. Being a skilled worker, this Court
is inclined to add Rs.5,00/- more to that
income to fix his notional income @ Rs.6,000/-
per month.
7. Learned Tribunal assessed loss of earning
for four months @ Rs.3,000/-. Since we have
fixed his notional income @ Rs.6,000/-, he is
eligible to get Rs.24,000/- for loss of
earning for four months. After deducting
Rs.12,000/- already awarded, he is entitled to
get the balance amount of Rs.12,000/- under the
head 'loss of earning'.
8. The appellant was hospitalized for 20
days. Though he claimed Rs.3,000/- towards
extra nourishment, no amount was awarded by the
Tribunal. Since he was hospitalized for 20
days, this Court is inclined to award
Rs.2,000/- (20x100) under the head 'extra
nourishment'.
9. For damage to clothing, no amount was
awarded by the Tribunal, though the appellant
claimed Rs.500/-. This Court is of the view
that Rs.500/- is quite reasonable towards
damage to clothing, and hence allowed.
10. Towards pain and suffering, learned
Tribunal awarded Rs.18,000/- against his claim
of Rs.20,000/-. Since he suffered fracture of
shaft of femur and malleolus with skin abrasion
over upper thigh and both knee joints, this
Court is inclined to award Rs.2,000/- more
under the head pain and suffering.
11. In order to prove the disability
suffered by the appellant, he produced Ext.A6
disability certificate, showing that he had
suffered 7% whole body disability. Learned
Tribunal accepted disability to the extent of
4% only, finding that the Doctor, who issued
that certificate was not examined. Even then,
the Tribunal has stated in paragraph 8 of the
award that the appellant appeared before him
and he was found to be having difficulty in
sitting and walking. He was not able to climb
and he was having continuous pain on both legs
and hip. Considering that aspect, this Court is
of the view that the Tribunal ought to have
accepted 7% disability noted by the Doctor in
Ext.A6 certificate, even if the Doctor was not
examined. So, the disability compensation can
be assessed as Rs.85,680/- (6000x12x17x7/100).
After deducting the amount already awarded
under that head, i.e., Rs.24,480/-, the
appellant is entitled to get the balance amount
of Rs.61,200/- under the head 'permanent
disability'.
12. Towards loss of amenities, learned
Tribunal awarded Rs.16,000/- against his claim
of Rs.20,000/-. After seeing the appellant, the
Tribunal has specifically noted his
difficulties in sitting, walking, climbing etc.
and the continuous pain he was suffering on
both legs and hip. So, this Court is inclined
to add Rs.4,000/- more towards loss of
amenities.
13. The enhanced compensation awarded in
this appeal is stated in the table below:-
Amount Amount
Head of claim Difference to be
awarded by awarded in
drawn as enhanced
the Tribunal appeal compensation
24,000/-
Loss of earning 12,000/- 12,000/-
(6000x4)
Extra 2,000/-
- 2,000/-
Nourishment (20x100)
Damage to
- 500/- 500/-
clothing
Pain & suffering 18,000/- 20,000/-
2,000/-
85,680/-
Disability 24,480/- (6000x12x17x7 61,200/-
/100)
Loss of
16,000/- 20,000/- 4,000/-
amenities
TOTAL 81,700/-
14. In the result, the appellant is entitled
to get Rs.81,700/- in total as enhanced
compensation.
15. The 3rd respondent-Insurer is directed
to deposit the enhanced compensation of
Rs.81,700/- with 8% interest per annum, from
the date of petition till the date of deposit
(excluding 168 days of delay in filing the
appeal) before the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Thrissur, within a period of two
months, from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment. Learned Tribunal shall disburse
the compensation amount to the appellant after
deducting the liabilities, if any, of the
appellant towards tax, balance court fee, legal
benefit funds etc.
The appeal is allowed to the extent as
above, and no order is made as to costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS,
JUDGE
ska
