Kerala High Court
Job vs Thankachan A.J on 12 November, 2024
2024:KER:84340
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1946
MACA NO. 1591 OF 2018
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 12.02.2016 IN O.P.[M.V.]NO.176 OF
2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA
APPELLANT-PETITIONER:
JOB
S/O. VARGHESE, KOZHICKAL HOUSE,
ANCHALIPPA KARA,
KOOVAPPALLY VILLAGE,
KANJIRAPPALLY.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
SRI.MATHEW DEVASSI
RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS:
1 THANKACHAN A.J
S/O. MATHAI JOSEPH, ARACKAPARAMBIL,
PANACHEPPALLY POST, KANJIRAPPALLY 686 518.
2 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
KANJIRAPPALLY BRANCH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
D.O.H, KANJIKUZHY,
KOTTAYAM 686 002.
R2 BY ADV. SMT.REKHA NAIR
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 08.11.2024, THE COURT ON 12.11.2024 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
MACA No.1591/2018
:2:
2024:KER:84340
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the petitioner in OP(MV) No.176/2016 on the files
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala.
2. The said claim petition was filed by him seeking compensation
for the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on
15.11.2015.
3. According to the appellant on 15.11.2015 at 6.30 p.m, while
he was standing on the side of the public road an autorikshaw bearing
registration No.KL-34-D 2948 driven by the 1 st respondent in a rash and
negligent manner hit him resulting in serious injuries.
4. The owner-cum-driver of the offending autorikshaw was
arrayed as the 1st respondent in the original claim petition, whereas the
insurer of the said vehicle was arrayed as the 2nd respondent.
5. The 2nd respondent insurer resisted the claim by filing a
written statement, primarily contesting the quantum of compensation
claimed despite admitting the insurance coverage for the vehicle.
6. The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A7 from the
side of the claimant. The 2nd respondent produced no evidence.
2024:KER:84340
7. After trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the
accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the
autorikshaw bearing registration No.KL-34-D-2948 and being the insurer,
the 2nd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The
quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.58,466/- with interest at the
rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation with
proportionate costs. This appeal is filed seeking enhancement of the said
compensation.
8. Heard Sri. Mathew John, the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and Smt. Rekha Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the
2nd respondent, insurance company.
9. The only dispute in this case relates to quantum of
compensation. The main contention raised by the counsel for the
appellant is that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various
heads is grossly inadequate. A perusal of records reveals that the said
contention has some merit.
10. For the purpose of determining compensation, under the
head of loss of earnings, the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the
petitioner at Rs.8,500/- whereas, the petitioner claimed Rs.10,000/-. It is
2024:KER:84340
true that no evidence, whatsoever, is seen produced from the side of the
petitioner to show his actual occupation and income at the time of the
accident. However, considering the fact that the accident occurred in the
year 2015, the tribunal, following the principles laid down in
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co.Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236] ought to have assessed the
petitioner's monthly income at Rs.10,000/- notionally.
11. The medical evidence reveals that the petitioner sustained
the following injuries in the accident.
1. Fracture D2 vertibra
2. Contusion back 5x3 cm
3. pain and abrasion all over the body.
12. It can also be seen from the records that the injured
underwent inpatient treatment for six days. Considering the nature of
injuries the tribunal entered into a finding that the petitioner might have
been prevented from procuring earnings for three months. However in
my view the petitioner's injuries justify a minimum five months loss of
earnings. The petitioner is thus entitled to get an amount of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand only) (10000x5) as compensation under the head
2024:KER:84340
of loss of earnings. After deducting the amount already awarded by the
Tribunal, the petitioner is thus entitled to an amount of Rs. 24,500/-
(Rupees twenty four thousand and five hundred only) as additional
compensation under the said head.
13. Similarly, the tribunal failed to award any amount as
compensation under the head of loss amenities. Considering the severity
of the injuries and duration of inpatient treatment undergone by the
petitioner, I firmly believe that a suitable amount should have been
allowed under the aforementioned head as compensation. I am of the
considered view that a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand
only) can be awarded under the said head.
14. Under the head of pain and sufferings already an amount of
Rs.27,500/- is seen awarded by the tribunal. Considering the fact that
the petitioner suffered injuries including fracture and the nature of the
treatment undergone by him, I deem it appropriate to allow a further
sum of Rs.7,500/- under the said head, as compensation.
15. The compensation awarded by the tribunal under the other
heads appears to be reasonable and warrants no interference. Thus the
total additional compensation receivable by the appellant would come to
2024:KER:84340
Rs.57,000/- (24,500+25,000+7,500) (Rupees fifty seven thousand
only).
In the light of the abovesaid observations and findings, this appeal
is allowed. The award dated 02.02.2018 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Pala in OP(MV) No.176/2016 is hereby modified by
granting an additional compensation of Rs.57,000/- (Rupees fifty seven
thousand only). The 2nd respondent, insurance company, is directed to
deposit the said amount along with interest, at the rate as ordered by the
tribunal, from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate costs.
The said amount shall be deposited within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ncd
