Kerala High Court
Kuriakose vs Saiju.K.V on 8 November, 2024
2024:KER:83455
MACA No.1989 of 2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1946
MACA NO. 1989 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2018 IN OPMV NO.239 OF
2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANT/S:
KURIAKOSE
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.THOMAN @ THOMAS, ARAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
KUTTICHIRA DESOM, VELLIKULANGARA VILLAGE AND P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV V.BINOY RAM
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SAIJU.K.V
S/O. VARGHESE, KAVUNGAL HOUSE, G.R. RIVER VIEW GARDEN,
WEST YAKKARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678701.
2 K.V. SHAJAN,
S/O. VARGHESE, KAVUNGAL HOUSE, VELLIKULANGARA DESOM AND
VILLAGE P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680699,
3 THE MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, BRANCH OFFIE, PB NO.1,
SREEKUMAR BUILDING, SOUTH JUNCTION, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN-680307.
BY ADV SMT.P.A.REZIYA
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 08.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:83455
MACA No.1989 of 2019
2
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, (J.)
-------------------------------------
MACA NO. 1989 Of 2019
---------------------------------
Dated the 8th day of November, 2024
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award passed on
12.12.2018 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Irinjalakuda in O.P.(MV) No.239 of 2016, by the petitioner
therein, claiming that the amount awarded under various
heads is insufficient.
2. On 02.01.2016, while the appellant was walking
through a public road, a car driven by the 2 nd respondent in
a rash and negligent manner hit him and he suffered
injuries. As there is no challenge against the findings of the
Tribunal regarding the cause of the motor accident, nature
of injuries suffered, the liability of the respondent, etc., the
discussion hereunder is limited to the essential aspects
only.
3. Heard both sides and perused the available records.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that, it is evident from Ext.A9 driving license,
2024:KER:83455
that the appellant was a heavy vehicles driver and thus the
learned Tribunal went wrong in fixing the monthly income
at the rate of Rs.10,000/-. He relied on the law laid down in
Manusha Sreekumar vs United India Insurance Co.
Ltd [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 858] to substantiate his claim.
5. He also pointed out that the Tribunal ought to have
awarded more amount towards loss of amenities as well as
bystander expenses, as the appellant was hospitalised. He
also contended that, though Ext.A7 disability certificate
shows that the appellant suffered a total disability of 8.09%,
the Tribunal fixed the percentage of disability as 7% alone,
without any reason.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted that, there is no oral evidence to prove that the
appellant suffered any disability, at a rate, more than what
is awarded by the Tribunal. It is also contended that the
Tribunal has correctly assessed the compensation and no
enhancement is thus required.
7. There is no serious dispute as to the fact that the
petitioner is a heavy vehicle driver. His driving license
shows that he was competent to drive such vehicles during
the relevant period. I find force in the submissions made by
2024:KER:83455
the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the
Tribunal ought to have fixed his monthly income atleast at
the rate of Rs.15,600/-, in view of the decision in Manusha
Sreekumar's case (supra). Paragraph 20 of the said
judgment is extracted below:-
"20. Schedule B-Category III of the Kerala Fair Wages Act
classifies a driver as a "Skilled worker". Reading this in
conjunction with the Notification that came into effect from
01.01.2015 which amended Schedule A of the Kerala Fair
Wages Act, prescribing a minimum pay scale of the
workers listed in Schedule B, it is apparent that a 'driver'
in Kerala earned a minimum of Rs. 15,600/- in 2015. It
appears to us that the aforesaid Act and the notification
issued thereunder were not brought to the notice of the
Tribunal or the High Court. As a result thereto, the High
Court could not be cognizant of the statutory mandate
prescribing minimum wages for a skilled worker like
'driver', and thus, erred in fixing the income of the
Deceased at Rs.10,000/-. We are therefore inclined to fix
the income of the Deceased notionally at Rs. 15,600/- per
month. "
8. In this case, the accident occurred in the year 2016
and hence the monthly income can be fixed at the same
rate viz Rs.15,600/- . There is no dispute as to the age of
appellant as 52 and hence the multiplier to be applied is 11.
Therefore, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 1,44,144/-
(15600x12x11x7/100)
2024:KER:83455
9. Similarly, injuries suffered by the appellant are:-
(a) Suspected fracture to 2nd and 3rd Metatarsal and
(b) Fracture to right lateral cuneiform.
Thus the appellant ought to have been awarded with more
amount towards loss of amenities than Rs.20000/-. It is only
just and proper to award Rs.20,000/- more towards loss of
amenities, considering the nature of the above injuries.
10. As contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant, the appellant can be given compensation for
bystander allowance @ Rs.1,000/- per day.
The appellant is entitled to get additional
compensation under the following heads:
1. Compensation for permanent disability
and loss of earning power Rs. 51,744/-
(144144-92400)
2. Compensation for loss of amenities Rs. 20,000/-
(40000-20000)
3. Bystander expenses Rs.700/-
(1000-300)
Total Rs.72,444/-
The impugned award is modified only to the above
extent. The M.A.C.A stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
SM
