Kerala High Court
P.T.Sasidharan vs Dr.Prasanth.K.S on 17 February, 2025
MACA NO. 829 OF 2012
1
2025:KER:14850
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 28TH MAGHA, 1946
MACA NO. 829 OF 2012
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 20.10.2011 IN OPMV NO.1683 OF 2005 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS :-
1 P.T.SASIDHARAN, S/O THANKAPPAN,
THEKKECHIRA VELIYIL HOUSE, KUHAMMA P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA, WARD-13.
2 THANKAMMA, W/O P.T.SASIDHARAN,
THEKKECHIRA VELIYIL HOUSE, KUHAMMA P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA, WARD-13.
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR
SMT.V.SHYLAJA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :-
1 DR.PRASANTH.K.S, S/O K.S.PILLAI HOUSE,
NO.1465/3RD KUTTATH, VALAYIYABALAM, KOCHI-16.
2 SABEESH P.S., PONNAD P.O.,
MANNANCHERRY, ALAPPUZHA.
3 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, NORTH OF IRONBRIDGE,
NELLAI COMPLEX, ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV SMT.DEEPA GEORGE
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 17.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 829 OF 2012
2
2025:KER:14850
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1683/2005 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha is the appellant herein. Before the
Tribunal the petitioner was represented by his wife.(For the purpose of
convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the
Tribunal).
2. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in
a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.02.2005. According to the
petitioner, on 13.02.2005 at about 04.45 p.m., while he was riding pillion on a
bicycle, a scooter bearing Registration No.KL-07/D-1792 driven by the 2 nd
respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit him down and as a result of the
accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries.
3. The 1st respondent is the owner and 3rd respondent is the insurer
of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred
due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of
compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.5,48,024-.
4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the
accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the
MACA NO. 829 OF 2012
2025:KER:14850
driver of the offending vehicle.
5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PWs
1 and 2 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A20 and X1.
6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total
compensation of Rs.4,13,328/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.
7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this appeal.
8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just
and reasonable?
9. Heard Sri.A.T.Anilkumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner/appellant, and Smt.Deepa George, the learned Standing Counsel for
the 3rd respondent.
10. In the accident the petitioner sustained brain injuries and he
was treated for cromatic brain injury -c right heavy plegia and aphasia, SDH
and he had sustained fracture lower end of right radius.
11. As per Ext.X1 disability certificate issued by the Medical
Board his permanent physical disability was fixed as 50%. At the time of the
accident the petitioner was working in Government Health Department as
nurse. He was aged 53 at the time of accident. However, due to the severity of
MACA NO. 829 OF 2012
2025:KER:14850
the injuries sustained, after the accident he could not attend his office and
retired from service as such.
12. The petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and the Tribunal
after examining the petitioner noted his condition in the award that, he
appeared with the assistance of two persons as he was not in a position to
stand or walk. There was swelling on his both legs. Subsequently, on
15.12.2017 the petitioner died, presumably because of the injuries sustained
in the accident. Since the petitioner could not attend his office or do any job
after the accident, and thereafter he succumbed to the injuries, though as per
Ext.X1 the permanent disability of the petitioner was assessed as 50%, I hold
that for awarding just and reasonable compensation his functional disability is
to be treated as 100%, provided no separate compensation is to be awarded
for loss of earning power.
13. From the impugned award, it is revealed that after the accident
till the date of retirement the petitioner availed leave for a total period of 542
days. His monthly income was Rs.5,752/-. However, for the purpose of
assessing the loss of disability, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income as
Rs.4,000/- on the ground that the petitioner is a Government servant and due
to the accident there was no loss of income. However, it is revealed that, after
the accident the petitioner could not attend the office and he had availed leave
MACA NO. 829 OF 2012
2025:KER:14850
for the entire remaining service, till his retirement. In the above circumstance,
I hold that for the purpose of assessing the loss of disability, his salary as such
is to be taken as the monthly income.
14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 53 years.
Therefore, 15% of the monthly income is to be added towards future
prospects, as held in the decision in National Insurance Co.Ltd v Pranay
Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and the multiplier to be applied is 11, as held in
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. In the
above circumstances, the loss of disability will come to Rs.8,73,153/-.
15. Since the functional disability of the petitioner is taken as
100%, he is not entitled to get any compensation on the head loss of earning.
16. Towards the head 'pain and sufferings', the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.25,000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.20,000/- was
awarded and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.5,000/- was awarded.
Considering the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and
percentage of disability suffered by him, I hold that the compensation
awarded on the head pain and suffering, loss of amenities and extra
nourishment are on the lower side. Hence, they are enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/-,
Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively.
17. Towards bystander expense, the Tribunal has awarded
MACA NO. 829 OF 2012
2025:KER:14850
Rs.21,200/- at the rate of Rs.100/- for 212 days. In the accident the petitioner
sustained very serious brain injuries and thereafter he could not attend his
office. He appeared before the Tribunal with the help of two persons as he
could not stand of walk of his own.
18. Subsequently, on 15.12.2017 the petitioner died, presumably
because of the injuries sustained in the accident. It was in the above context,
his functional disability was taken as 100%. Therefore, he is entitled to get
reasonable compensation towards bystander expense.
19. In the decision in Kajal v. Jagadeesh Chand & Others [2020
(4) SCC 413], in the case of a 12 year old child suffering from 100%
disability and in paraplegic condition the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
awarded the expense of two bystanders at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. In
this case the petitioner could walk with the help of bystander and as such I
hold that in this case the expense of one bystander @ Rs.5000/- will be a
reasonable compensation on the above head. Since he was aged 53 and the
multiplier applicable is 11 and the petitioner died after 11 years and 10
months, I hold that towards bystander expense, the petitioner is entitled to get
a sum @Rs.5000/- per month for 11 years, which will come to Rs.6,60,000/-
(5000x12x11).
20. The petitioner has produced additional medical bills worth
MACA NO. 829 OF 2012
2025:KER:14850
Rs.6,798/-. It is true that the petitioner was in continuous treatment even after
the award. Considering the fact that towards future treatment, the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.10,000/- no further compensation is awarded on the basis of the
additional bills produced.
21. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads,
as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and
reasonable.
22. Therefore, the petitioner/appellant is entitled to get a total
compensation of Rs.18,60,257, as modified and recalculated above and given
in the table below, for easy reference.
Sl.
No. Head of Claim Amount awarded Amount Awarded
by Tribunal in Appeal
(in Rs.) (in Rs.)
1 Loss of earning 69,024 Nil
2 Treatment Charges 42,804 42,804
3 Transportation charges 4,000 4,000
4 Bystander expenses 21,200 6,60,000
5 Extra nourishment 5,000 20,000
7 Compensation for pain and 25,000 1,50,000
suffering
MACA NO. 829 OF 2012
2025:KER:14850
8 Compensation for permanent 2,16,000 8,73,153
disability
9 Loss of amenities 20,000 1,00,000
10 Future treatment 10,000 10,000
Total 4,13,328 18,60,257
Amount enhanced 14,46,929
21. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3rd
respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.18,60,257- (Rupees
Eighteen Lakh Sixty Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Seven Only), less the
amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum, from
the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, excluding interest for a period
of 345 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs,
within a period of two months from today.
22. On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse
the entire amount to the petitioner, excluding court fee payable, if any,
without delay, as per rules.
Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR,
JUDGE
SMA
MACA NO. 829 OF 2012
2025:KER:14850
PETITIONER ANNEXURES :-
Annexure A ORIGINAL COPY OF THE DISCHARGE
CERTIFICATE DATED 26.6.2017
Annexure B ORIGINAL C.T SCAN REPORT OF THE 1ST
APPELLANT DATED 18-06-2017
AnnexureC THE ORIGINAL INPATIENT BILL DATED 21-9-
Annexure D 1 THE ORIGINAL CASH BILL NO. 41230 DATED
20.06.2017 OF THE 1ST APPELLANT
Annexure D 2 THE ORIGINAL CASH BILL NO. 80481139/2017
DATED 19/06/2017 OF THE 1ST APPELLANT
Annexure D 3 THE ORIGINAL CASH BILL NO. 59765 DATED
17/09/2017
Annexure D 4 THE ORIGINAL CASH BILL NO. 59765 DATED
17.09.2017
Annexure D 5 THE ORIGINAL CASH BILL NO. 59779 DATED
17.09.2017
Annexure D 6 THE ORIGINAL CASH BILL NO. 60571 DATED
19.09.2017
Annexure D 7 THE ORIGINAL CASH BILL NO. 60431 DATED
19.09.2017
Annexure D 8 THE ORIGINAL CASH BILL NO. 60733 DATED
20.09.2017
Annexure D 9 THE ORIGINAL CASH BILL NO. 60991 DATED
21.09.2017
