Kerala High Court
Ajeshkumar vs Vishnu on 13 November, 2024
2024:KER:84493
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024/22ND KARTHIKA, 1946
MACA NO. 1179 OF 2018
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 09.03.2018 IN OPMV NO.577 OF
2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANT/PETITONER:
AJESHKUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. RAJAN,
ARAKKAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, RESIDING AT V R PURAM
DESOM, PERAMBRA VILLAGE, V R PURAM PO,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.EBIN GOPURAN
SRI.JOSEPH GOPURAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 VISHNU
S/O. SIVARAMAN, POOKUTTATHIL HOUSE, CHOKKANA
P.O., VELLIKULANGARA.OWNER CUM RIDER:KL-64/B 3197
MOTORCYCLE.
2 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
IRINJALAKUDA, INSURER:KL-64/B 3197 MOTORCYCLE.
BY ADV P.M.M.NAJEEB KHAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.11.2024, THE COURT ON 13.11.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA No.1179/2018
:2:
2024:KER:84493
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the petitioner in OP(MV) No.577/2014 on the files
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda.
2. The said claim petition was filed by him seeking compensation
for the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on
31.03.2014.
3. According to the appellant on 31.03.2014 at 8.35 a.m., while
he was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.TAQ-6451, another
motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-64/B-3197 ridden by the 1 st
respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the motorcycle ridden
by the petitioner resulting in serious injuries to him.
4. The owner-cum-rider of the offending motorcycle was
arrayed as the 1st respondent in the original claim petition, whereas the
insurer of the said motorcycle 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 offending
motorcycle.
2024:KER:84493
6. The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A12 from the
side of the claimant. Disability certificate issued by the Medical Board
was marked as Ext.X1. Ext.B1 was exhibited from the side of the 2 nd
respondent.
7. After trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the
accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 1 st respondent,
the owner-cum-rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-64-B-
3197 and being the insurer, the 2nd respondent herein was held liable to
pay the compensation. However, the tribunal further found that the 1 st
petitioner was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the
accident and hence there is violation of policy conditions. Considering
the same, the 2nd respondent was permitted to recover the compensation
paid, from the 1st respondent. The quantum of compensation was fixed
as Rs.7,56,100/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from
20.06.2014 till realisation. This appeal is preferred seeking enhancement
of the said compensation.
8. Heard Sri. Ebin Gopuran, the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and Sri. P.M.M. Najeeb Khan, the learned counsel appearing
for the 2nd respondent, insurance company.
2024:KER:84493
9. The only and main dispute that revolves round in this case is
with respect to the quantum of compensation. The main contention
raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the compensation awarded
by the tribunal under certain 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 permanent disability and loss of earnings, the tribunal assessed
the income of the petitioner at Rs.6,500/-. The petitioner claimed that he
was a tile worker and earning a monthly income of Rs.24,000/-.
However, no evidence, whatsoever, is seen produced from the side of the
petitioner to prove his actual occupation and income at the time of the
accident. However, considering the fact that the accident occurred in the
year 2014, 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.9,500/- notionally. The disability
certificate issued from the Medical Board and marked as Ext.X1 reveals
that the petitioner is affected with a disability of 20%. However, after
considering the nature of injuries and the treatment undergone by the
2024:KER:84493
petitioner the tribunal rightly determined the petitioner's functional
disability as 30%. The petitioner was aged 30 at the time of the
accident. In view of the judgment in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)] the multiplier applicable is 17.
Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,81,400/- (Rupees
five lakhs eighty one thousand four hundred only) (9500x12x17x30/100).
Already an amount of Rs.3,97,800/- is seen awarded by the tribunal
under the head of permanent disability. After deducting the said amount
the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,83,600/-as additional
compensation under the aforementioned head. Consequent to the
revision of monthly income the appellant is entitled to get additional
compensation for loss of earnings also. The tribunal awarded
compensation under this head for ten months which appears reasonable.
Therefore, a sum of Rs.95,000/-(Rupees ninety five thousand only)
(9,500x10) has to be awarded under the head of loss of earnings. The
already awarded amount of Rs.65,000/- has to be deducted from the
above-mentioned amount and the additional compensation under the
head of loss of earnings will come to Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand
only).
2024:KER:84493
11. The compensation awarded by the tribunal under the other
heads appears to be reasonable and warrants no interference. In the
result, the total additional compensation receivable by the appellant
would come to Rs.2,13,600/- (1,83,600 + 30000) (Rupees two lakhs
thirteen thousand six hundred only).
In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings the appeal is
allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of
Rs.2,13,600/- (Rupees two lakhs thirteen thousand six hundred only) with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation
from 20.06.2014 till the date of realisation. The 2nd respondent insurance
company is ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest
before the tribunal with proportionate costs within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment.
Immediately on the compensation amount being deposited, the tribunal
shall, after deducting the liability of the appellant/petitioner towards court
fee, disburse the compensation amount to the appellant/petitioner in
accordance with law. Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ncd
