Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1230 (KER)

Sandhya W/o Padmakumar v. Thrivedi Babu

2025-05-19

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant is the claimant in O.P. (MV) No. 526/2006 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur. The respondents in the original petition are the respondents in this appeal as well. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. Before the Tribunal, the appellant contended that on 17.10.2005 at around 3:30 p.m., while her husband Padmakumar was driving a Maruti Omni van along the Alappuzha- Kollam National Highway with her and their two children, an Indigo car driven by the 2 nd respondent collided with their van near Maruthamukku, causing them serious injuries. The appellant alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the 2 nd respondent which is owned by the Chief Conservator (Development), Forest Headquarters the 1 st respondent, and insured with the District Insurance Officer, Kerala State Insurance Department, the 3 rd respondent. Accordingly, it was contended that respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the appellant for the personal injuries sustained in the accident. 3. The appellant was a 36-year-old housewife who also worked as an LIC agent, at the time of accident. According to her, she was earning an income of Rs. 7,500/- per month. As a result of the accident, she sustained multiple injuries, including serious trauma to her right hip region. She suffered a pelvic fracture, dislocation of the right hip, and a comminuted fracture of the right femoral shaft. Due to these injuries, she experienced shortening of the right leg. She was treated as an inpatient at Amrita Hospital, Ernakulam, where she underwent multiple surgeries. She claimed a total compensation of Rs. 46,95,000/- under various heads. The husband of the appellant and the two minor children filed separate claim petitions. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 filed written statements contending that there was no negligence on the part of the 2 nd respondent, and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the van by the appellant's husband. Therefore, they contended that, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation to the appellant. It was also contended that the compensation claimed under various heads is excessive, exorbitant, and exaggerated. 5. The 3 rd respondent insurer filed a written statement largely in conformity with the contentions of respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, they contended that, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation to the appellant. It was also contended that the compensation claimed under various heads is excessive, exorbitant, and exaggerated. 5. The 3 rd respondent insurer filed a written statement largely in conformity with the contentions of respondents 1 and 2. It was contended that the compensation claimed under various heads is excessive and exorbitant, and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. The Tribunal ordered joint trial of all the four original petitions. Evidence was adduced in OP (MV) No. 527/2006 filed by the appellant's husband. 7. The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the negligence on the part of the 2 nd respondent, the driver of the car. 8. The Tribunal, by common award, found that the appellant is entitled to get Rs.11,93,700/- (Rupees eleven lakhs ninety three thousand and seven hundred only) as compensation with 7.5% interest from the date of original petition, ie. from 11.07.2006, till realisation and proportionate cost of Rs.30,000/-. The Tribunal also found that respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable for the amount of compensation, along with interest and proportionate costs. The 3 rd respondent insurance company was made liable to indemnify the 1 st respondent/insured. 9. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads is as follows:- S. No. Head of claim (Rs) Amount claimed (Rs.) Amount awarded (Rs.) A Loss of earnings 180000 42000 B Transportation expenses 100000 25000 C Damage to clothings 5000 1000 D Treatment expenses 900000 743100 E Future treatment 1000000 50000 F Bystander expenses Nil 6000 G Extra nourishment 10000 5000 H Pain and sufferings 800000 60000 I Loss of amenities of life, discomforts and inconvenience caused 500000 60000 J Permanent disability 1200000 201600 Total Rs.4,695,000.00 1193700 The appellant seeks enhancement of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. The Tribunal, on the basis of Ext. A40 disability certificate, found that the appellant has sustained 30% permanent disability. 11. As regards the compensation awarded under the head loss of earnings, the appellant claimed that her monthly income was Rs.7,500/-. The total amount claimed by the appellant under the said head was Rs.1,80,000/-. According to her she was an LIC agent. The Tribunal found that there is no documentary evidence for the same. However, being a homemaker, the Tribunal fixed her notional monthly income as Rs. 3,500/-. The total amount claimed by the appellant under the said head was Rs.1,80,000/-. According to her she was an LIC agent. The Tribunal found that there is no documentary evidence for the same. However, being a homemaker, the Tribunal fixed her notional monthly income as Rs. 3,500/-. The period of disability was taken as 12 months and an amount of Rs.42,000/- (3500×12) was awarded as compensation for loss of earnings. On the basis of the said notional income, an amount of Rs. 2,01,600/- was awarded as compensation for permanent disability, taking the multiplier as 16 (42000×16×30/100). In Gopinathan A. and Others vs. Afzal Basha and Another , 2020 (3) KHC 666 , this Court held that the notional monthly income to be considered for a housewife/homemaker who met with a motor accident in the year 2004, for the purpose of awarding just and reasonable compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency', shall not be less than Rs. 4,500/-. This figure is equivalent to the notional income that could be taken for a manual labourer or a worker in the unorganised sector, such as a vegetable or fruit vendor, who met with a motor accident in the same year, taking into account the notional income fixed by v the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited , 2011 (13) SCC 236 : AIR 2011 SC 2951 . Therefore, in this case, the accident being of the year 2005, the notional monthly income of the appellant is re-fixed as Rs.4,500/-, for the purpose of assessing compensation under the heads loss of earnings and permanent disability. 12. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.42,000/- under the head loss of earnings. With the re-fixed income of Rs.4,500/-, the compensation for loss of earnings is recalculated as Rs. 54,000/- (4500 x 12) and the appellant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.12,000/ - under the said head. 13. The appellant was aged 36 years at the time of accident and as per the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v . Pranay Sethi and Ors. 2017 (4) KLT 662 , the multiplier to be adopted is 15' and not 16' as taken by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the compensation for permanent disability is re-fixed as Rs. 2,43,000/- (4500×12×15×30/100). Since the appellant has already been paid an amount of Rs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. 2017 (4) KLT 662 , the multiplier to be adopted is 15' and not 16' as taken by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the compensation for permanent disability is re-fixed as Rs. 2,43,000/- (4500×12×15×30/100). Since the appellant has already been paid an amount of Rs. 2,01,600/-, she is entitled for an enhanced amount of Rs.41,400/- under the said head. 14. As regards the future treatment expenses, though the appellant claimed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.50,000/-. The appellant had produced Ext. A33 certificate dated 23.02.2011 issued from Lake Shore Hospital, Ernakulam stating that she requires total hip replacement surgery and the approximate cost for the surgery will be Rs.4,55,000/-. However, the Tribunal did not accept Ext.A33 certificate on the ground that the appellant’s entire treatment was conducted at Amrita Hospital, Ernakulam, and no certificate had been produced from the said hospital to substantiate the claim that the appellant required a hip replacement. Although the reasoning of the Tribunal may not be entirely plausible, this Court had occasion to examine the certificate dated 25.10.2010 issued by Amrita Hospital to the appellant, which was inadvertently produced as Annexure-A 2 in M.A.C.A. No. 1170 of 2015 filed by the appellant's husband. In that certificate, it is stated that the appellant may require replacement of the right hip joint and right knee joint in the near future, in the event of arthritic changes. However, the appellant has not produced any further medical certificates to demonstrate that she presently requires replacement of the right hip and knee joints due to such arthritic changes. Therefore, this Court is not interfering with the said finding of the Tribunal. 15. Towards compensation for loss of amenities in life, though the appellant had claimed Rs. 5,00,000/-, the Tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs. 60,000/-. Considering the nature of the injuries and the permanent disability sustained, I find that an additional amount of Rs. 25,000/- can be awarded under this head. 16. I find that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable. 17. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled for a total enhanced amount of Rs.78,400/- [12000+41400+25,000]. 60,000/-. Considering the nature of the injuries and the permanent disability sustained, I find that an additional amount of Rs. 25,000/- can be awarded under this head. 16. I find that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable. 17. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled for a total enhanced amount of Rs.78,400/- [12000+41400+25,000]. The 3 rd respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount before the Tribunal with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing the original petition, i.e. 11.07.2006 till the date of deposit with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. While calculating the interest on the enhanced compensation, the appellant will not be entitled for interest for a period of 1267 days in the light of the order dated 24.10.2019 in C.M. Application No.1682/2016 in the appeal. 18. The appeal is disposed of.