Kerala High Court
A.V.Saju vs The National Insurance Company Ltd on 21 March, 2025
MACA NO. 604 OF 2018 1
2025:KER:24586
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1946
MACA NO. 604 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 15.09.2017 IN OPMV
NO.961 OF 2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
A.V.SAJU
AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY,
ATHIRAMPUZHA HOUSE,KOMBANAD.P.O.- 683546.
BY ADVS.
SRI.TONY THOMAS(INCHIPARAMBIL)
SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE
RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
2ND FLOOR,MULLAPPILLY
BUILDING,A.M.ROAD,P.B.NO.24,PERUMBAVOOR-683542.
BY ADVS.
KUM.AMMU MANOHARAN NARAYANAN
SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN COME UP
FOR HEARING ON 21.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 604 OF 2018 2
2025:KER:24586
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 961 of 2013 on the file Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor has preferred this appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal on
account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that
occurred on 26.03.2013.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:-
On 26.03.2013, at about 9.40 a.m., while the petitioner
was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-40-B-9572
through Aluva - Perumbavoor KSRTC road, an autorickshaw bearing
registration No. KL-40-C-4064 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash
and negligent manner tried to overtake the motorcycle through its
left side and suddenly turned to the right side without giving any
signal and hit against the petitioner's motorcycle. Due to the
impact of the hit, the petitioner was thrown to the road causing
severe injuries on him.
3. The owner-cum-rider of the offending autorickshaw was
arrayed as 1st respondent, whereas, the insurer of the said
autorickshaw was arrayed as the 2nd respondent. The insurer of the
motorcycle ridden by the petitioner was arrayed as the 3rd
respondent.
2025:KER:24586
4. The 2 nd
respondent contested the petition by filing a
written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation
claimed. However, the 2nd respondent admitted insurance coverage
for the autorickshaw involved in the accident.
5. During trial, from the side of the petitioner, Exts.A1 to
A14 were produced and marked. The disability certificate issued by
the medical board was produced and marked as Ext.C1. No
evidence, whatsoever, was adduced from the side of the
respondents.
6. After trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the
accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the
autorickshaw bearing No. KL-40-C-4064 by the 1st respondent, and
being the insurer, the 2nd respondent was held liable to pay the
compensation. The compensation was quantified as Rs. 3,36,983/-
with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition
till realisation and proportionate costs. Seeking enhancement of the
compensation awarded by the tribunal, the petitioner has come up
with this appeal.
7. I heard Sri.Tony Thomas Inchiparambil, the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri.P.G.Jayashankar, the
learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2025:KER:24586
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads is
too meager and not in consonance with the gravity and nature of
the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident and not
sufficient to compensate the consequent hardships and
inconveniences caused to him. Per contra, the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the
compensation awarded is just, fair, and reasonable and warrants no
interference.
9. From the rival contentions 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. Admittedly, the
petitioner is a person blessed with a government job. At the time of
the accident, he was working as a Class IV Employee in the
Re-survey Department. In this case, there is no evidence to show
that the petitioner lost his job because of the injuries sustained in
the accident, or there was a reduction in his salary because of the
accident. Moreover, even the petitioner is not having such a case.
In the above circumstances, the notional income of the petitioner is
liable to be fixed as 50% of the income he received during the date
of the accident. The salary certificate pressed into service from the
2025:KER:24586
side of the petitioner and marked in evidence as Ext.A8 reveals that
the petitioner was getting a salary of Rs. 16,198/-. After deducting
50%, the income of the petitioner can be reasonably fixed at
Rs. 8,099/- (Rupees Eight Thousand and Ninety Nine only). As the
petitioner was aged 50 years at the time of the accident, in view of
the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation
[2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)], the multiplier to be reckoned is 11.
The disability certificate issued by the medical board and marked in
evidence as Ext.C1 shows that the petitioner suffered a disability of
4% due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
Resultantly, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of
Rs. 42,763/- [Rs. 8,099/- x 12 x 11 x 4/100] as compensation
under the head of permanent disability. Already an amount of
Rs. 31,680/- has been 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. 11,083/- (Rupees
Eleven Thousand and Eighty-Three only) as additional compensation
under the said head.
10. The medical records adduced in this case reveal that the
petitioner had sustained the following injuries in the accident;
● Tibial Plateau Fracture ® side;
2025:KER:24586
● Fracture neck of fibula ®.
Of course, the injuries sustained by the petitioner are
grievous in nature. The pain and sufferings endured by the
petitioner in the accident ought not to have been overlooked by the
tribunal while awarding compensation under the head of pain and
sufferings. The tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.45,000/-
under the head of pain and sufferings. Considering the nature of the
injuries sustained by the petitioner and the treatment procedures
underwent by him, I am of the view that the amount of
compensation awarded by the tribunal under the head of pain and
sufferings is on the lower side. Therefore, I am of the view that an
amount of Rs. 75,000/- is to be awarded under the head of pain and
sufferings. After deducting the already awarded amount of
Rs. 45,000/-, the petitioner is entitled to get an additional
compensation of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) as
additional compensation under the head of pain and sufferings.
11. Similarly, the compensation awarded by the tribunal
under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life also
appears to be on the lower side. Only an amount of Rs. 35,000/- is
seen awarded by the tribunal under the head of loss of amenities
and enjoyment in life. As revealed from the medical records, the
2025:KER:24586
petitioner had undergone 37 days of inpatient treatment and he
availed 198 days of leave. If he had not availed those leaves, the
same would have been used by him for other purposes. Therefore,
I am of the view that while awarded compensation under the head
of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life, the hardships and
inconveniences caused to the petitioner due to the injuries
sustained by him in the accident ought not have been ignored by
the tribunal. I am of the view that an additional compensation of
Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) is to be awarded under
the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life.
12. As already stated the petitioner underwent 37 days of
inpatient treatment. However, only a meager amount of Rs.
2,000/- is seen awarded by the tribunal under the head of extra
nourishment. I am of the view that an additional compensation of
Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) is to be awarded under the
head of extra nourishment.
13. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other
heads appears to be reasonable and justifiable and hence, no
interference is warranted. Hence, an amount of Rs. 58,083/-
(Rs. 11,083/- + Rs. 30,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 2,000/-) has to
be added towards the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2025:KER:24586
In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the
appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further
amount of Rs. 58,083/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Thousand and
Eighty-Three only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on
the enhanced compensation from the date of claim petition till the
date of deposit, after deducting interest for a period of 55 days, i.e.,
the period of delay in preferring this appeal and as directed by this
Court on 24.02.2023 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 the
certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
