Kerala High Court
Sreejesh vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd on 17 February, 2025
2025:KER:14835
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 28TH MAGHA, 1946
MACA NO. 4077 OF 2018
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 15.05.2018 IN OP(MV) NO.708 OF 2015
OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VATAKARA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SREEJESH,
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O. JANARDHANAN, PARAMBATH (H),
KAVIL (P.O), KOZHIKODE-673 614,
(NOW RESIDING AT KUTTAMBATH (H),
KAVIL (P.O), KOZHIKODE-673 614
BY ADV A.V.M.SALAHUDDEEN
RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, HAPPY TOWER,
EAST ROAD, KOYILANDI,
KOZHIKODE-673 305
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR, SC.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 17.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA No.4077 of 2018
2
2025:KER:14835
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the petitioner in O.P.(MV)No.708/2015 on the file of
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara, seeking enhancement of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by him
in a motor accident that occurred on 28.05.2015.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:-
On 28.05.2015 at 8.30 p.m., while the petitioner was riding a motorcycle
bearing Registration No. KL-56-H-9141, another motorcycle bearing Registration
No. KL-56-K-9626, owned and ridden by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent
manner hit against the motorcycle ridden by the petitioner. Due to the impact of
the hit, the petitioner was thrown to the road causing him severe injuries.
3. The owner cum rider of the offending motorcycle was arrayed as 1st
respondent, whereas, the insurer of the said motorcycle was arrayed as 2nd
respondent. The 2nd respondent contested the petition by filing a written statement
mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite admitting
insurance coverage for the motorcycle. The petitioner's evidence consists of Exts.A1
2025:KER:14835
to A4. From the side of the respondent, no evidence was produced.
4. After trial, the learned Tribunal entered into a conclusion that the
accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the
motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-56-K-9626, and the 2nd respondent, being
the insurer, was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of
compensation was fixed at Rs.1,02,800/- with 9% interest from the date of petition
till realisation and with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation awarded the petitioner has come up with this appeal.
5. Heard Sri. A.V.M. Salahuddeen, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, and Sri. P.K. Manoj Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent, the Insurance Company.
6. From the rival contention raised it is gatherable that, the main dispute
that revolves around this appeal is with respect to the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
the compensation awarded under various heads is too meager and will not be
sufficient to compensate the actual injuries, hardships, and inconveniences caused
2025:KER:14835
to the petitioner due to the accident. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
appropriate, reasonable, and just and hence, warrants no interference.
7. On a perusal of the impugned award, it is discernable that, for the
purpose of determining compensation under the head of loss of earnings, the
Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.7,000/-. Though in the
petition, it was claimed that the petitioner was a coolie earning a monthly income
of Rs.15,000/-, no evidence, whatsoever, was produced from the side of the
petitioner to substantiate his claim regarding his occupation and income. Anyhow,
irrespective of the claim made in the petition, it was the duty of the Tribunal to
ensure that the compensation awarded under various heads is just, fair, and
reasonable. In this regard, I am fortified by the decision in Rajesh & others v.
Rajbir Singh & Others [2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC)]. The accident in this case is
admittedly occurred in the year 2015. Therefore, in view of the decision in
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance
Company Ltd. [( 2011) 13 SCC 236], the Tribunal ought to have assessed the
monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.10,000/- notionally.
8. The medical records indicate that due to the accident, the petitioner
2025:KER:14835
had sustained an injury of Fracture tibia (R), and another Lacerated wound 10 x
6cm in the right leg. Anyhow, no documents are produced to show that the
petitioner had suffered any disability due to the said injuries. Apparently, the injury
is a serious one which will tell much upon the earnings of the petitioner, for a
considerable period. The learned Tribunal took five months period of loss of
earnings. However, I am of the view that the five months period of loss of earnings
taken by the Tribunal is not reasonable when compared with the nature of the
injuries sustained. As the petitioner had sustained tibia fracture, he would have
been prevented from doing any job or earning any income at least for seven
months. Hence, the petitioner is found entitled to get an amount of Rs. 70,000/-
(7 x 10,000/-) under the head of loss of earnings. Already an amount of
Rs.35,000/- is seen awarded by the Tribunal under the said head and after
deducting the said amount the petitioner is found entitled to get an amount of Rs.
35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) (Rs. 70,000 - Rs. 35,000) as
additional compensation under the head of loss of earnings.
9. A perusal of the Award shows that an amount of Rs. 40,000/- is
awarded by the tribunal under the head of pain and suffering. Evidently, the
2025:KER:14835
petitioner sustained a tibia fracture and he underwent four days of inpatient
treatment. The nature of the injury sustained and the treatment procedure
undergone by the petitioner could not be overlooked while awarding compensation.
Hence, considering the pain and suffering endured by the petitioner, I am of the
view that Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) can be awarded under the
head of pain and sufferings.
10. Under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, only a
meager amount of Rs.20,000/- is seen awarded by the Tribunal. The hardships and
inconveniences caused to the petitioner, due to the injuries sustained in the
accident, cannot go unnoticed while awarding compensation under the head of loss
of amenities and enjoyment of life also. I am of the view that an amount of
Rs.30,000/- can be awarded under the head of loss of amenities. After deducting
the already awarded amount of Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss of amenities,
the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
only) as additional compensation under the head of loss of amenities.
11. Hence the petitioner is found entitled to get an amount of Rs. 60,000/-
(Rs.35,000/- + Rs. 15,000 + Rs.10,000/-) as additional compensation.
2025:KER:14835
In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the appeal is allowed
by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty
Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the enhanced
compensation from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit after deducting
interest for a period of 86 days, i.e., the period of delay in preferring this appeal
and as directed by this Court on 11.08.2021 in C.M. Appln. No.1/2018. The
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 a certified copy of the judgment.
SD/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN,
JUDGE
HKH/17.02.2025
