Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1322 (KER)

Ramla, W/o. Abdunasar v. Koyakutty, S/o. Pocker

2025-05-21

JOBIN SEBASTIAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 772 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 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 26.03.2018. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:- On 26.03.2018, at around 2.45 p.m., while the petitioner was standing on the side of Perinthalmanna - Malappuram public road, a car bearing registration No. KL-53-F-9619 driven by the 1 st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the petitioner. Due to the impact of the hit, the petitioner was thrown onto the road causing severe injuries on her. 3. The owner cum driver of the offending car was arrayed as 1 st respondent, whereas, the insurer of the car was arrayed as the 2 nd respondent. The 2 nd respondent contested the petition by filing a written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite admitting insurance coverage for the car involved in the accident. 4. During trial, the documents produced from the side of the petitioner were marked as Ext.A1 to A8. The disability certificate issued by the medical board was marked as Ext.X1. No evidence, whatsoever, was adduced from the side of the respondents. 5. After trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration No. KL-53-F-9619 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. 15,29,100/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. Seeking enhancement of the said compensation awarded, the petitioner has come up with this appeal. 6. Heard Sri. R. Sreehari, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Kiran Peter Kuriakose, the learned standing counsel for the 2 nd respondent. 7. 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. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads is too meager and will not commensurate with the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads is too meager and will not commensurate with the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner. According to the counsel, the tribunal erred in awarding reasonable amount as compensation under the heads of pain and sufferings, loss of amenities and enjoyment in life etc. Per contra learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent, insurance company, would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under every head is just, fair, and reasonable and hence, warrants no interference. 8. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that for the purpose of determining compensation under the head of permanent disability and loss of earnings, the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs. 11,500/-. In the petition, it was contended that the petitioner was a tailor by profession at the time of the accident and was earning a monthly income of Rs. 15,000/-. Apart from taking such a bare contention in the petition, no evidence whatsoever has been produced from the side of the petitioner to substantiate her contentions regarding her occupation and income. I am not unmindful of the fact that it is not prudent to expect that a lady doing tailoring work in her home could produce documentary evidence to prove her income and occupation. Anyhow, it was after considering the year of the accident and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ] , the tribunal assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs. 11,500/-. I am of the view that the income assessed by the tribunal is justifiable and no interference is warranted in that regard. 9. In order to prove that the petitioner had suffered permanent disability, a disability certificate issued by the medical board is marked in evidence as Ext.X1. A perusal of the disability certificate shows that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability of 51% due to the injuries sustained in the accident. It was mainly relying on Ext. X1 disability certificate, the tribunal entered into a finding regarding the amount of compensation awardable under the head of permanent disability. The percentage of disability noted in the medical certificate is seen applied by the tribunal while awarding such an amount. It was mainly relying on Ext. X1 disability certificate, the tribunal entered into a finding regarding the amount of compensation awardable under the head of permanent disability. The percentage of disability noted in the medical certificate is seen applied by the tribunal while awarding such an amount. Therefore, no interference is required in the compensation awarded by the tribunal under the head of permanent disability. 10. Anyhow, the treatment records reveal that the petitioner had sustained the following injuries in the accident; ? crush foot injury with complete dislocation of 1 st and 2 nd meta tarsal from MTP joint and TMT joint with complete tear of FHL; ? EHB and EDL of 2 nd toe; ? oesteo chondral loss of medial cuneiform; ? degloving of skin; ? dorsum of foot right and lacerated wound right proximal leg. Of course, the injuries sustained by the petitioner are serious nature. Defenitely, those injuries would have a telling impact on the earning capacity of the petitioner, especially when she is affected with a permanent disability of 51%. Therefore, I am of the view that a reasonable amount must be awarded under the head of loss of earnings. The nature of the injuries suggests that the petitioner would have been prevented from doing any job or earning any income at least for a period of 12 months. But the tribunal awarded loss of earnings only for a period of 6 months. The same is not justifiable. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 1,38,000/- (Rs. 11,500/- x 12) as compensation under the head of loss of earnings. Already an amount of Rs. 69,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal under the said head. After deducting the said amount, the petitioner is entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 69,000/- (Rupees Sixty nine thousand only) under the head of loss of earnings. 11. The nature of the injuries itself is self-speaking regarding the pain and sufferings endured by the petitioner due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Already, the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation under the head of pain and sufferings. Given the serious nature of the injuries and the complicated and serious treatment procedures underwent by the petitioner, I am of the view that the compensation awarded under the said head is too meager. Already, the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation under the head of pain and sufferings. Given the serious nature of the injuries and the complicated and serious treatment procedures underwent by the petitioner, I am of the view that the compensation awarded under the said head is too meager. Hence, in order to adequately compensate the petitioner for the pain and sufferings endured by her, I am of the view that an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is to be awarded under the said head. Resultantly, the petitioner is entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only) under the head of pain and sufferings. 12. The treatment records as well as the other medical records pressed into service from the side of the petitioner, show that she had undergone 5 days of inpatient treatment. Moreover, she was constrained to visit the hospital for follow-ups. The inconveniences and hardships met by her in connection with the injuries sustained in the accident could not be overlooked while awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. It is true that no amount is claimed in the petition towards compensation under the said head. However, now, by a series of judicial pronouncements, it is well settled that it is incumbent upon the court to ensure that the compensation awarded is just, fair, adequate, and reasonable, irrespective of the claim made by the parties. Therefore, though no amount is claimed under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life, I am of the view that in the interest of justice, an amount of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) is to be awarded under the said head as well. 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. 1,69,000/- (Rs. 69,000/- + Rs. 60,000/- + Rs. 40,000/-) has to be added towards the compensation awarded by the tribunal. In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs. 1,69,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs Sixty Nine 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. In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs. 1,69,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs Sixty Nine 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 this judgment.