Kerala High Court
Shafeeque vs Shoy P. Paul on 22 January, 2025
2025:KER:5902
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 2ND MAGHA, 1946
MACA NO. 2323 OF 2016
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 11.12.2015 IN OPMV NO.240 OF 2013 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER :-
SHAFEEQUE, AGED 22 YEARS
S/O. IBRAHIM, PEDIKAYIL HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT
ILLIAS, THEKKUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MATHIRAPPILLY
DESOM, MATHIRAPPILLY BHAGAM, KOTHAMANGALAM
VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ELSON SIMON
SRI.PRAMOD KOCHUTHOMMEN.E.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :-
*1 SHOY P. PAUL, S/O. POULOSE, PULLAN HOUSE,
ASSAMANNOOR VILLAGE,NEDUNGAPRA P.O., PIN-683 545.
*2 NISHA ROY, KUNNATHUKUDY PULLAN HOUSE, NEDUNGAPRA
P.O., KURUPPAMPADY, PIN-683 545.
*RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE DELETED FROM PARY ARRAY
AT THE RISK OF APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED
27.09.2022 IN I.A.NO.1/2022.
3 THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
BRANCH OFFICE, ALUVA-683 101.
BY ADV SRI.M.PREMCHAND
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 2323 OF 2016
2
2025:KER:5902
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.240/2013 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, is the appellant. The respondents
in the O.P are the respondents herein. 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
30.05.2012.
2. According to the petitioner, on 30.05.2012 at about 09.30 am,
while he was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-39-1317
through Aluva - Munnar road, he was hit by a car bearing Registration
No.KL-40/E 9292 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent
manner. As a result of which, he fell down and sustained serious injuries.
3. The 2nd respondent is the owner and 3rd respondent is the insurer
of the offending car.
4. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. The 3 rd respondent filed
a written statement alleging that the accident occurred due to the negligence
of the petitioner.
5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral evidence of Pws 1
and 2 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A12 on the side of the petitioner.
MACA NO. 2323 OF 2016
2025:KER:5902
No evidence was adduced by the respondents.
6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a
compensation of Rs.3,53,956/-
7. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this appeal.
8. Now the point that arises for considerations are the following:
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable?
9. Heard Sri.Elson Simon, the learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant and Sri.M.Premchand, the learned Standing Counsel for the
insurance company.
10. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the monthly income of the petitioner fixed by the Tribunal at
Rs.5,000/- is on the lower side. According to the petitioner, he was working
as a supervisor in a private firm and getting a monthly salary of Rs.7,500/-.
He also produced Ext.A10 salary certificate. However, he failed to prove his
job as well as income as claimed in the claim petition and as such his notional
income is liable to be fixed in the light of the dictum laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236]. Accordingly, his
MACA NO. 2323 OF 2016
2025:KER:5902
notional income is fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.8,500/-.
11. In the accident, the petitioner sustained the following injuries :-
"haematoma frontal scalp, tenderness right hip movements painful and
abrasion right elbow and closed reduction and skeletal traction was
done"
12. Ext.A12 is the disability certificate issued by PW2, who is an
Orthopedic Surgeon stating that the petitioner sustained 18% permanent
physical disability. The Tribunal accepted Ext.A12 and fixed the permanent
disability of the petitioner at 18%.
13. Since the petitioner was aged 22 years on the date of the accident,
40% of the income is liable to be added towards future prospects, and the
multiplier to be applied is 18. Therefore, the loss of disability will come to
Rs.4,62,672/.
14. Towards loss of earning, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/-.
Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the
percentage of disability suffered by him, I hold that he is entitled to get
monthly income for a period of 8 months towards loss of earning and hence,
it will come to Rs.68,000/- (8,500x8)
15. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards
compensation for pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities
and Rs.2,000/- towards extra nourishment. The learned counsel would argue
MACA NO. 2323 OF 2016
2025:KER:5902
that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the above
heads are on the lower side. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by
the petitioner and the percentage of disability suffered by him, I hold that the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the above heads are on
the lower side, and hence they are enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and
Rs.5,000/- respectively.
16. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads,
as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and
reasonable.
17. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total
compensation of Rs.8,44,628/-, as modified and recalculated above and given
in the table below, for easy reference.
Sl. No. Head of claim Amount awarded The amount given
by the Tribunal(Rs) in appeal (Rs.)
1 Loss of earnings 30000 68,000
2 Partial loss of earnings Nil Nil
3 Transport to hospital 4000 4000
4 Extra nourishment 2000 5000
5 Damage to clothes 1000 1000
6 Medical expenses 1,48,456 148456
MACA NO. 2323 OF 2016
2025:KER:5902
7 Pain and suffering 30000 100000
8 Loss of amenities 25000 50000
9 Permanent disability 108000 462672
10 Attendance charge 5500 5500
11 Loss of earning power Nil Nil
Total 3,53,956 8,44,628
Amount enhanced 4,90,672
18. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 2nd respondent
is directed to deposit a total compensation of Rs.8,44,628/- (Rupees Eight Lakh
Forty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Eight Only), less the amount
already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of
the petition till realisation (interest for enhanced compensation is limited to 8%),
excluding interest for a period of 128 days, the period of delay in filing the
appeal with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today .
19. 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
