Kerala High Court
Ramla Beevi vs Raj A C on 28 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946
MACA NO. 1909 OF 2016
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 30.01.2016 IN OP(MV)NO.1391 OF 2008 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL
APPELLANT/APPLICANT:
RAMLA BEEVI
AGED 39 YEARS
W/O.ABDUL KARIM, AZEEM MANZIL,
ALUMKUZHY, KONCHIRA P.O.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.ANILKUMAR
SRI.G.RADHAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT:
1 RAJ A C
T.C 485/14, AKAL SREEVILAS LANE,
KURAVANKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695003.
2 SAJITH KUMAR.K.V.
S/O.V.RAMACHANDRAN, C.55, RP LANE,
KURAVANKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
695003,(REMOVED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY),
3 THE MANAGER
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,SOUNDARYA
BUILDINGS, PULIMOODU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
695001.
R3 BY ADV RAJI T.BHASKAR, SC.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 28.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA No.1909 of 2016 2
JUDGMENT
This appeal is at the instance of the claimant in OP(MV) No.1391
of 2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal,
impugning the Award on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.
2. The appellant met with a road traffic accident on 24.07.2008,
while she was travelling in an autorickshaw through
Vembayam-Kanyakulangara road. KL-01/AC 801 Maruti Car driven by
the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the
autorickshaw and the appellant sustained serious injuries including
fracture of right femur, right tibial condyle, tibia left, and fracture
acetabulum. She was hospitalised for 36 days in total, in three
different hospitals. She was a tailor aged 40, and she suffered much
loss physically and financially. So, she approached the Tribunal
claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakh. Learned Tribunal awarded only
Rs.3,81,615/-. Hence this appeal.
3. 3rd respondent/insurer admitted the accident as well as the
policy of the offending vehicle.
4. Now this Court is called upon to find out 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/insurer.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, the
appellant was a 40 year old tailor earning monthly income of
Rs.4,000/-. Though learned Tribunal accepted her income as claimed,
loss of income was taken only for nine months. She was hospitalised
for 36 days and she was not able to resume her tailoring work due to
extensive fracture injuries suffered on both legs. So, this Court is
inclined to assess his loss of earning for 12 months @ Rs.4,000/-
which would come to Rs.48,000/-. After deducting Rs.36,000/-
already awarded, she is entitled to get the balance amount of
Rs.12,000/- under the head, loss of earning.
7. Towards bystander expenses, learned Tribunal awarded only
Rs.5,400/-, taking into account 36 days of IP alone. The appellant had
suffered fracture right femur, right tibial condyle, tibia left and also
fracture acetabulum. She had suffered permanent disability also due
to the injuries suffered in the accident. So, this Court is inclined to
award bystander expenses @ Rs.250/- per day for three months which
will come to Rs.22,500/-. After deducting Rs.5,400/- already
awarded, she is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.17,100/-
under the head bystander expenses.
8. Towards pain and suffering, this Court is inclined to award
Rs.10,000/- more, considering the nature of injuries, period of
hospitalisation and also the period of rest after discharge from
hospital.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, the
disability suffered by the appellant was 30% as seen from Ext.A19
disability certificate. But learned Tribunal accepted disability only to
the extent of 20% without assigning any valid reason. According to
him, the disability mentioned in Ext.A19 had to be taken as such, and
future prospects also had to be added to her monthly income while
fixing the disability compensation.
10. True that, learned Tribunal has not assigned any specific
reason, for reducing the percentage of disability, except the statement
that 'in my view the disability assessed is on the higher side'. The
doctor who issued Ext.A19 certificate was not examined. Moreover,
the disability was separately taken for each fracture and also for the
third nerve palsy. Ext.A19 certificate will not say that the 30%
disability assessed by the doctor was with respect to her whole body.
Even then, considering the nature of injuries suffered with nonunion of
femur and recurrent infection, this Court is inclined to take her
disability to the extent of 25%. She is not entitled for addition of any
future prospects, as there is no evidence to show that she was not
able to do any job, because of that 25% disability. So, the disability
compensation can be re-assessed as Rs.1,80,000/- (4000x12x15x
25/100). After deducting Rs.1,44,000/- already awarded, she is
entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.36,000/-.
11. Under the head loss of amenities, learned Tribunal awarded
Rs.36,000/-. Since the appellant had suffered nonunion of femur,
recurrent infection, limitation of movements of the right hip, radiating
pain over the back of leg, stiffness of knee joint etc. etc. as mentioned
in Ext.A19 disability certificate, this Court is inclined to award
Rs.14,000/- more under the head loss of amenities.
12. The compensation awarded under all other heads seems to
be reasonable and it need not be interfered with.
Amount Amount Difference to be
Head of claim awarded by the awarded in drawn as
Tribunal appeal enhanced
compensation
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Loss of earning Rs.36,000/- Rs.48,000/- Rs.12,000/-
Bystander expenses Rs.5,400/- Rs.22,500/- Rs.17,100/-
Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/- Rs.40,000/- Rs.10,000/-
Disability compensation Rs.1,44,000/- Rs.1,80,000/- Rs.36,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs.36,000/- Rs.50,000/- Rs.14,000/-
Total Rs.2,51,400/- Rs.3,40,500/- Rs.89,100/-
13. In the result, the appellant is entitled to get Rs.89,100/-
(Rupees Eighty nine thousand one hundred only) as enhanced
compensation.
The 3rd respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation of Rs.89,100/- (Rupees Eighty nine thousand one
hundred only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of deposit (except 150 days of delay in filing the
appeal) before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal, 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 and legal benefit fund.
The appeal is allowed to the extent as above. No order as to
costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS
JUDGE
smp
