Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1239 (KER)

Jose S/o Vareeth v. P. Manicka Sundharam

2025-05-19

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP (MV) No.501 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal. 2. The case of the appellant/claimant is that on 15.12.2005, while he was walking as a pedestrian along the Aluva Market road, a mini lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-33/AB-6820 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit him, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the tribunal. The respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A16 were marked and PW1 was examined on the side of the appellant/claimant. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the third respondent. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs. 4,41,839/- as compensation under different heads against the third respondent being the insurer, with right of recovery from the first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the first respondent, and the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent insurer. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement under the following heads: 5.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant claimed that he was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month as a driver by profession, the tribunal has fixed the notional monthly income only at Rs. 3,500/-. Admittedly, no document was produced by the appellant to prove income. However, as per the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236 , the notional monthly income of the appellant ought to have been fixed at Rs. 5,000/-. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem it appropriate to refix the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 5,000/-. 5.2. Loss of earnings - Since the notional monthly income of the appellant is refixed at Rs. 5,000/-. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem it appropriate to refix the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 5,000/-. 5.2. Loss of earnings - Since the notional monthly income of the appellant is refixed at Rs. 5,000/- compensation towards loss of earnings for a period of six months has to be recalculated, which would come to Rs. 30,000/-. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 9,000/- towards loss of earnings after deducting the compensation of Rs. 21,000/- awarded by the tribunal. 5.3. Pain and suffering - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering, the tribunal awarded only Rs. 35,000/-. It is seen that the appellant sustained contusion with abrasion on the vertex, multiple abrasion on the extremities and multiple fractures. Considering the injuries sustained by him and the sufferings that he had undergone, I am inclined to grant an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant as total compensation towards pain and suffering. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation towards pain and suffering. 5.4. Loss of amenities - Though the appellant claimed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- under this head, the tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs. 20,000/- which, according to the appellant, is on the lower side. Considering the injuries sustained by the appellant, I deem it appropriate to award a total compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of amenities. 5.5. Permanent disability - Since the notional monthly income of the appellant is refixed at Rs. 5,000/- compensation towards permanent disability has to be recalculated. Thus, following the judgments in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC), the appellant will be entitled to get a total compensation of Rs. 1,34,400/- (5000 x 12 x 14 x 16%) towards permanent disability. Hence, there will be an additional amount of Rs. 40,320/- under the head of permanent disability. 6. 1,34,400/- (5000 x 12 x 14 x 16%) towards permanent disability. Hence, there will be an additional amount of Rs. 40,320/- under the head of permanent disability. 6. Though the appellant claimed enhancement of compensation under other heads as well, on a perusal of the records available and the impugned award, I am not inclined to interfere with the same since it appears to be just and reasonable. 7. The learned counsel for the first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle submits that the offending vehicle was having fitness certificate till 2007, whereas the accident occurred in 2005. But, no documents were produced before the tribunal or this Court to prove the same. However, it is made clear that if the insurance company is proceeding with the execution petition, the first respondent will be free to produce the original of the fitness certificate relating to the relevant period, before the execution court to prove their claim. 8. The impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows: S. No. Head of Claim Amount claimed (in) Rs. Amount awarded by the tribunal (in) Rs. Modified in appeal (in) Rs. Total compensation (in) Rs. 1. Loss of earnings 50000 21000 9000 30000 2. Transport to hospital 2000 1000 1000 3. Extra nourishment 50000 4500 4500 4. Damage to clothing 5000 500 500 5. Attendant charges 25000 4350 4350 6. Medical expenses 350000 261409 261409 7. Pain & suffering 150000 35000 15000 50000 8. Loss of amenities 100000 20000 30000 50000 9. Disability 100000 94080 40320 134400 Total 1107000 limited to 800000 441839 94320 536159 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs. 94,320/- (Rupees ninety four thousand three hundred and twenty only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount together with interest and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and recover the same from the first respondent. The appellant shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and bank details before the respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. The appellant shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and bank details before the respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellant at the earliest in accordance with law. The enhanced compensation will not carry interest for the period of delay of 166 days in filing the appeal.