Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1035 (KER)

Raghunath, S/o Sreedharan v. P. K. Asokan

2025-04-11

C.PRATHEEP KUMAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.562 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur is the appellant herein. (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 31.11.2005. According to the petitioner, on 31.11.2005 at about 04.30 p.m., while he was riding a motorcycle, an autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KL-8/AB-6572 driven by the 1 st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the petitioner fell down and sustained serious injuries. 3. The 1 st respondent is the driver cum owner and 2 nd 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.3,44,500/-. 4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. 5. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A18. 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.1,28,193/- rounded to Rs.1,28,200/- and directed the insurer to pay the same and permitted them to recover it from the 1 st respondent. 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.T.C.Sureshmenon, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.Titus Mani, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2 nd respondent. 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal. As per the claim petition, the petitioner is an electrician by profession getting a monthly income of Rs.6,000 but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.3,000/-. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal. As per the claim petition, the petitioner is an electrician by profession getting a monthly income of Rs.6,000 but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.3,000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. 11. It is true that the petitioner could not prove his income, as claimed in the OP. Ext.A9 is the licence issued to the petitioner from the Omallur Grama Panchayat for repairing electrical instruments. Therefore, from Ext.A9, it is revealed that the petitioner is an electrician by profession. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ], the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2005 will come to Rs.5000/-. Therefore, the petitioner being an electrician by profession, his notional income is fixed at Rs.7,000/-, for the purpose of computing the loss of disability. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained fracture both bones of right leg. 13. Exhibit A8 disability certificate issued by an orthopedic consultant assessed the permanent physical disability of the petitioner as 17.3%. The Tribunal, however, scaled down the percentage of disability of the petitioner to 8%, without assigning valid and cogent reasons. During the pendency of the appeal, he was again referred to a medical board constituted by the Superintendent, Government Medical College Hospital, Thrissur for assessing his permanent physical disability. The Superintendent, Government Medical College Hospital, Thrissur forwarded a certificate stating that his permanent physical disability assessed by the medical board is 7%. Considering the fact that the tribunal has accepted his permanent physical disability as 8%, I am inclined to accept the disability of the petitioner as 8%. 14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 31 years. Therefore, 40% 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 16, 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.1,50,528/- 15. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ] and the multiplier to be applied is 16, 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.1,50,528/- 15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.12,000/- being the income for 4 months @Rs.3,000/-. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained and the percentage of disability suffered by the petitioner, the petitioner might have lost income at least for a period of 6 months. Therefore, towards 'loss of income' the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.42,000/- (7,000 x 6 months). 16. Towards the heads ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- and 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.12,000/- was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side. 17. The petitioner sustained serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 34 days. Because of the injuries sustained, the percentage of disability suffered and the length of treatment undergone by the petitioner, I hold that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the heads ‘pain and sufferings’ and 'loss of amenities of life' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.50,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively. 18. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 19. Therefore, the petitioner/appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.3,10,641/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: Sl. No. Head of Claim Amount awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Amount Awarded in Appeal (in Rs.) 1 Loss of earnings 12,000 42,000 2 Medical and miscellaneous expenses 31,013 31,013 3 Bystander expenses 5,100 5,100 4 Transportation expenses 2,000 2,000 5 Pain and sufferings 20,000 50,000 6 Disability etc 46,080 1,50,528 7 Loss of amenities 12,000 30,000 Total 1,28,193 limited to 1,28,200 3,10,641 Enhanced to Rs. 1,82,441 20. 1,82,441 20. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 2 nd respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.3,10,641/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ten Thousand Six Hundred and Forty One 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 153 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. 21. 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. 22. The Tribunal has found that at the time of accident the offending vehicle had no valid permit and also that the 1 st respondent had no valid driving licence. Therefore, the Tribunal had directed the insurer to pay the compensation to the petitioner and then to recover it from the 1 st respondent. Though notice was served, the 1 st respondent did not turn up and as such the order for pay and recovery is retained.