Kerala High Court
Harees vs Mohanachandran on 15 November, 2024
MACA No.1421 of 2018 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 24TH KARTHIKA,
1946
MACA NO. 1421 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19-10-2015 IN OPMV
NO.1072/2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER :
HAREESM AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O. ABDUL RASHEED, PUTHUVAL HOUSE, PURAKAD,
WARD-17 ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 561.
BY ADV K.T.SAJU
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 MOHANACHANDRAN, S/O. JANARDHANAN PILLAI,
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT, MALIK VEEDU,
NETTISSERIYIL, WARD - 13, OLLACKARA,
THRISSUR - 680 655.
2 NATIONAL INSURANCE COM.LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, THRISSUR
BRANCH, M.G.ROAD, NAIKKANAL, THRISSUR - 68001.
BY ADV N.S.NAJEEB FOR R2
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 13.11.2024, THE COURT ON 15-11-2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA No.1421 of 2018 2
JOHNSON JOHN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
MACA No.1421 of 2018
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of November, 2024.
J U D G M E N T
The appellant was the petitioner in OP(MV)
No.1072 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha.
2. According to the appellant on 09-04-
2007 at about 7.30 p.m., while he was pulling a
concrete mixing machine along Kollam - Alappuzha
road near Purakkad Church, car bearing
registration No.KL 08/AK-9612 driven by the first
respondent in a rash and negligent manner caused
to hit him and thereby, he sustained serious
injuries. The first respondent is also the owner
of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2 is
the insurer.
3. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A7
and Ext.X1 were marked from the side of the
petitioner and no evidence was adduced from the
side of the respondents.
4. After trial and hearing both sides,
the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due
to the negligence on the part of the first
respondent and awarded a total compensation of
Rs.7,65,900/- to the petitioner.
5. The appellant is challenging the
quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal
under various heads on the ground that the same is
inadequate.
6. Heard Sri.K.T.Saju, the learned
counsel for the appellant and Sri.N.S,Najeeb, the
learned counsel for the second respondent.
7. According to the appellant he was
aged 32 years at the time of the accident and
earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal fixed
notional income of Rs.4,000/- per month.
8. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co.Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and Syed
Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United
India Insurance Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735 = 2014
KHC 4027] shows that even in the absence of any
evidence, the monthly income of an ordinary worker
has to be fixed as Rs.4,500/- in respect of the
accident occurred in the year 2004 and for the
subsequent years, the monthly income could be
reckoned by adding Rs.500/- each per year.
9. In this case, the accident occurred
in the year 2007. Therefore, if the monthly
income of the appellant is calculated by adopting
the above principle, it will come to Rs.6,000/-.
10. The learned counsel for the second
respondent argued that the appellant claimed only
Rs.4,000/- as his monthly income in the claim
petition and therefore, it is not just and fair to
fix a higher amount as notional income based on
the decision in Ramachandrappa (supra).
11. The learned counsel for the appellant
cited the decisions of the Honourable Supreme
Court in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand
Mahto and others [2022 KHC 7080] and Nagappa v.
Gurudayal singh [2003 KHC 15] to point out that
the grant of just and fair compensation is a
statutory responsibility of the court, and even if
a less amount is claimed in the claim petition,
the same would not be an impediment to award just
compensation in excess of the amount claimed.
12. It cannot be disputed that even a
casual worker is entitled for fair wages and the
notional income of an ordinary worker has to be
fixed after considering the fair wages at the
relevant time and only because the appellant was
earning less than the fair wages at the time of
occurrence, he cannot be denied parity in the
matter of notional income, as it is well settled
that beneficial legislations with social objective
are expected to be interpreted in favour of those
for whose benefit the said legislations are made.
Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, I am of the view that the appellant
is entitled for the benefit of the decisions of
the Honourable Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa and
Syed Sadiq (supra) regarding fixation of notional
income and that the contention of the 2nd
respondent in this regard is not legally
sustainable.
13. The decisions of the Honourable
Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and Jagdish v.
Mohan [(2018) 4 SCC 571] shows that an addition of
40% of the established income can be made towards
future prospects where the victim was below 40
years and that the benefit of future prospects
should not be confined only to those who have a
permanent job and would extend to self employed
individuals.
14. The Tribunal granted compensation for
loss of earning for a period of 9 months at the
rate of Rs.4,000/- per month. Since the monthly
income has been revised to Rs.6,000/-, the
appellant would get additional compensation for
loss of earning. Accordingly, a further sum of
Rs.18,000/- is awarded towards loss of earnings.
15. The Tribunal accepted 80% functional
disability on the basis of Ext.X1 certificate of
the Medical Board and the same is not under
challenge. When the compensation for loss of
earning power is calculated as per the revised
criteria, the same would come to Rs.12,90,240/-
[(6000 + 40%) x 12 x 16 x 80/100]. The amount
already awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.6,14,400/-
and thus the additional compensation under this
head would be Rs.6,75,840/-.
16. The next head which requires
consideration is loss of amenities. Even though
the petitioner claimed Rs.50,000/- towards loss of
amenities, the Tribunal has not granted any amount
under this head. Considering the nature of
injuries and disability, I find that Rs.20,000/-
can be granted to the appellant under this head.
Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to
the enhanced compensation as given below:
Particulars Compensation awarded Additional
by the Tribunal (Rs.) amount
granted by this
Court (Rs.)
Loss of earnings 36,000/- 18,000/-
Compensation for 6,14,400/- 6,75,840/-
loss of earning
power
Loss of amenities NIL 20,000/-
Total enhanced compensation 7,13,840/-
Thus, a total amount of Rs.7,13,840/-
(Rupees Seven Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Eight
Hundred and Forty only) is awarded as enhanced
compensation. The said amount shall carry interest
at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the
application till realization (excluding the period
of delay of 762 days in filing the appeal). The
appellant would also be entitled to proportionate
costs in the case. The claimant shall furnish the
details of the bank account to the insurance
company for transfer of the amount.
The appeal is allowed as above.
Sd/- JOHNSON JOHN, JUDGE.
amk
