Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1282 (KER)

Baby, W/o. Ramachandran v. Vipin K. T.

2025-05-20

JOBIN SEBASTIAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : (JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J.) The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.282 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- II, Manjeri has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident that occurred on 08.06.2016. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:- On 08.06.2016, at around 7.30 p.m., while the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on a Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KL-52/E-2627 ridden by the 1 st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and when the motor cycle reached at a place called Ramapuram, the same skidded on the road and the petitioner fell down from the motor cycle and sustained serious injuries. 3. The owner cum rider of the motor cycle bearing Registration No.KL-52/E-2627 was arrayed as 1 st respondent, whereas, the insurer of the said motor cycle was arrayed as the 2 nd respondent. The 2 nd respondent filed written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite admitting insurance coverage for the motor cycle involved in the accident. During trial, the documents produced from the side of the petitioner were marked as Exts. A1 to A7. The disability certificate issued by a competent medical board was marked as Ext.X1. From the side of the respondents no evidence, whatsoever, was aduced. 4. After trial, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle bearing registration No. KL-52/E-2627 by the 1 st respondent and being the insurer, the 2 nd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The compensation was quantified at Rs. 10,49,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the petitioner has come up with this appeal. 5. I heard learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the impugned award as well as the available materials. 6. 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. 5. I heard learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the impugned award as well as the available materials. 6. 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. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is too meager and is not sufÏcient to compensate the hardships and inconveniences caused to the petitioner due to the injuries sustained in the accident. According to the Counsel, the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the petitioner reasonably and hence awarded only a meager amount as compensation under the head of permanent disability and loss of earnings. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent, the insurance company urged that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under each and every head is reasonable and hence, warrants no interference. 7. From a perusal of the impugned award, it is gatherable that for the purpose of determining the compensation under the head of permanent disability and loss of earnings, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioners case is that she was a Coolie worker at the time of the accident and was earning a monthly income of Rs. 10,000/-. It was mainly taking note of the fact that, the petitioner has claimed an income of Rs. 10,000/-in the petition, the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.10,000/- only. However, as the provision contained under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation. It was incumbent upon the Tribunal to ensure that the compensation awarded by it under various heads is just, fare and reasonable irrespective of the claim made by the parties. In this regard, I am fortified by the decision in Rajesh & others v. Rajbir Singh & Others [ 2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC)] Notably, the accident was occurred in the year 2016. Therefore, in view of the principles laid down in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ] , the Tribunal ought to have assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.10,500/- notionally. 8. Therefore, in view of the principles laid down in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ] , the Tribunal ought to have assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.10,500/- notionally. 8. In order to prove that the petitioner had suffered permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the disability certificate issued from the medical board is produced and marked in evidence as Ext.X1. As evident from Ext.X1, the petitioner suffered a disability of 16% due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident. As revealed from the medical records, the petitioner had sustained the following injuries in the accident;a) Haemorrhagic contusion left temporal lobe and frontal lobe. b) Thin subdural hematoma left fronto – parietal region, Mildline shift to right side. c)Diffuse cerebral edema, Subarachanoid haemorrhage and Fracture occipital bone. 9. It is apparent that, the injuries sustained are grievance in nature. Therefore, the nature of the injuries itself will justify assessment of 16% of disability made by the medical board. It was mainly taking note of the fact that, the disability suffered by the petitioner will have a profound impact on her earning capacity, the tribunal made an addition of 25% to the income of the petitioner towards future prospects. No cross objection has been filed from the side of the respondent challenging the decison of the tribunal to make such an addition towards future prospects. Therefore, I am not interfearing with the said finding. Hence, after making an addition of 25% to the actual income of the petitioner towards future prospects the monthly income of the petitioner will come of to Rs.13,125/-. Since the petitioner was aged 40 at the time of the accident the multiplier to be reckoned is 15. Hence the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 3,78,000/- (13,125 x 12 x 15 x 16 /100) as compensation under the head of permanent disability. Already an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal as compensation under the head of permanent disability. After deducting the said amount, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs.18,000/- as additional compensation under the head of permanent disability. 10) Consequent to the revision in the monthly income, corresponding enhancement must be made towards the compensation awarded under the head of loss of earnings also. After deducting the said amount, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs.18,000/- as additional compensation under the head of permanent disability. 10) Consequent to the revision in the monthly income, corresponding enhancement must be made towards the compensation awarded under the head of loss of earnings also. As already stated, the petitioner sustained very serious injuries on his head including fracture. Therefore he would have been prevented from doing any work or earning any income atleast for ten months. Any how, the Tribunal took loss of earnings only for a period of five months regardless of the serious nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner. Hence I award an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- (10,500/- x 10) as compensation under the said head entitling the petitioner to get an additional compensation of Rs. 55,000/- (1,05,000 – 50,000) under the head of loss of earnings. 11) The nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the treatment procedure underwent by her itself are self speaking regarding the pain and suffering endured by her. The same has to be compensated adequately. Only an amount of Rs. 40,000/- has been awarded as compensation by the Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering. I am of the view that an additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- is to be awarded under the said head as well. 12. A perusal of the treatment records reveals that the petitioner had undergone fifty three days inpatient treatment. The prolonged period of impatient treatment could not be overlooked while awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. The hardships and inconveniences met by her due to the accident cannot go unnoticed. Overlooking those aspects, the Tribunal omitted to award any amount under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. I am of the view that an amount of Rs.25,000/- is to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. 13. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other various heads appears to be reasonable and justifiable and hence, no interference is warranted. Hence, an amount of Rs.1,08,000/- (18,000/- + 55,000/- +10,000 + 25,000/-) has to be added towards the total compensation. 13. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other various heads appears to be reasonable and justifiable and hence, no interference is warranted. Hence, an amount of Rs.1,08,000/- (18,000/- + 55,000/- +10,000 + 25,000/-) has to be added towards the total compensation. In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.1,08,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eight Thousand 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. 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 this judgment.