Kerala High Court
Renjith vs Suresh Babu on 1 November, 2024
2024:KER:81170
MACA No.4000/2022
..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1946
MACA NO. 4000 OF 2022
OPMV NO.948 OF 2019 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,
IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
RENJITH, AGED 29 YEARS
S/O. ARUMUGHAN, PUTHANALAKKAL HOUSE, KUZHIKKATTUKONAM
DESOM, MADAYIKONAM VILLAGE, KUZHIKKATTUKONAM P.O,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680712
BY ADV V.BINOY RAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SURESH BABU, AGED 63 YEARS
S/O. VELAYUDHAN, THOTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MOORKKANADU
DESOM, PORATHISSERY VILLAGE, MOORKKANADU P.O, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680711
2 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
2ND FLOOR, PERINCHERY BUILDING, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR,
REP. BY ITS MANAGER, PIN - 680003
BY ADV SAIGI JACOB PALATTY
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 01.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:81170
MACA No.4000/2022
..2..
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.948
of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Irinjalakuda. The respondents herein were the respondents before the
tribunal.
2. The case of the appellant/claimant is that on
09.05.2019, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-52-E-
1527 along Nandikkara - Mapranam public road, a car bearing
Reg.No.KL-42-G-7518 driven by the first respondent in a rash and
negligent manner, hit against the motorcycle ridden by him, whereby
he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a
total compensation of ₹5,00,000/-.
3. The first respondent remained ex parte before the
tribunal. The respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting
the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability
and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, PW1 was
examined and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the
appellant/claimant. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the respondent
insurer. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on
2024:KER:81170
..3..
record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence
of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹2,73,738/-
as compensation under different heads against the second respondent
being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation
awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims
enhancement under the following heads:
5.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the
appellant submits that though the appellant claimed that he was
earning ₹25,000/- per month, the tribunal has fixed the notional
monthly income only at ₹12,000/-. The appellant is claimed to be a
welder by profession, however, no document was produced to prove
the income or occupation. Therefore, I find that the monthly income of
₹12,000/- notionally fixed by the tribunal is just and reasonable, which
requires no interference.
5.2. Loss of earnings - The learning counsel for the
appellant submits that the tribunal took only a period of two months
2024:KER:81170
..4..
for awarding compensation towards loss of earnings. It was also
submitted that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the
appellant could not go for work for almost four months. Considering
the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, I am of the opinion
that compensation for loss of earnings can be granted to the appellant
for a period of four months. Thus, the total amount will come to
₹48,000/-. Since the tribunal has already awarded an amount of
₹24,000/-, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional
compensation of ₹24,000/- towards loss of earnings.
5.3. Permanent disability - The learned counsel for the
appellant submits that as per Ext.A5 disability certificate, permanent
disability of the appellant was assessed as 10.22%, which was reduced
by the tribunal to 5% while assessing compensation. Ext.A5 disability
certificate was proved before the tribunal by PW1, the doctor who
issued Ext.A5. The reasoning of the tribunal in reducing the
percentage of disability assessed as per Ext.A5 disability certificate
does not appear to be acceptable in view of the judgments of this
Court in Manikantan G. v. K.Janardhanan Nair [2021(5) KHC 305] and
Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar [2011 (1) KLT 620 SC]. Therefore, I deem it
appropriate to consider 10% functional disability for the purpose of
calculating compensation. Thus, following the judgments in National
2024:KER:81170
..5..
Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)] and Sarla
Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the
appellant will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹2,44,800/-
(12000 x 17 x 12 x 10%) towards permanent disability. Hence, there
will be an additional amount of ₹1,22,400/- under the head of
permanent disability over and above the amount of ₹1,22,400/-
awarded by the tribunal.
5.4. Loss of amenities - Though the appellant claimed an
amount of ₹1,00,000/- under this head, the tribunal awarded only an
amount of ₹25,000/-, which, according to the appellant, is on the lower
side. Considering the injuries sustained by the appellant, I deem it
appropriate to award a total compensation of ₹40,000/- towards loss of
amenities. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional
amount of ₹15,000/- towards loss of amenities.
6. Though the appellant claimed enhancement of
compensation under other heads, on a perusal of the records available,
I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation awarded by the
tribunal under other heads since it appears to be just and reasonable.
Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows:
2024:KER:81170
..6..
Sl.
No. Head of Claim Amount Amount Modified Total
claimed awarded in appeal compensation
(in ₹) by the (in ₹) (in ₹)
tribunal
(in ₹)
1. Loss of earnings 150000 24000 24000 48000
2. Transportation 2500 4000 4000
expenses
3. Extra nourishment 5000 3000 3000
4. Damage to 2500 3000 3000
clothing and
articles
5. Medical expenses 150000 40738 40738
6. Bystander's 30000 1600 1600
expenses
7. Pain and suffering 100000 50000 50000
8. Permanent 500000 122400 122400 244800
disability and loss
of earning power
9. Loss of amenities 100000 25000 15000 40000
Total 1040000 273738 161400 435138
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant is
awarded an additional compensation of ₹1,61,400/- (Rupees one lakh
sixty one thousand and four hundred only) over and above the
compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 8% per annum
from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The
respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount together with
interest and costs within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The appellant shall furnish
copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and bank details before the
2024:KER:81170
..7..
respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the
insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of
failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance
company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon such
deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the
appellant at the earliest in accordance with law.
SD/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
bka/-
