Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1410 (KER)

P. M. Suhara v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd

2025-05-23

C.S.SUDHA

body2025
JUDGMENT : C.S.SUDHA, J. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the claimant/petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.955/2014 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 12/03/2019. The sole respondent herein is the second respondent/insurer in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition. 2. According to the claimant/petitioner, on 14/06/2015 at 02:45 p.m., she was travelling as a pillion rider in motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-43/C-3945 through Ernakulam-Thoppumpady road. While so a lorry bearing registration no.KL-01/BL-902 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the motorcycle as a result of which she was thrown on to the road whereby she sustained grievous injuries. Hence the petition claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The 2 nd respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle. There was no negligence on the part of the first respondent. In fact, negligence was on the side of the rider of the motor cycle. The age, job, income, nature of injuries and amount claimed under various heads were disputed. 4. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the claimant/petitioner. No documentary evidence was produced by the respondents. Ext.X1 was marked as court exhibit. 5. The Tribunal on a consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the 1st respondent-driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs.2,93,106/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the petitioner/claimant has come up in appeal. 6. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court. 7. Heard both sides 8. Aggrieved by the Award, the petitioner/claimant has come up in appeal. 6. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court. 7. Heard both sides 8. The Award of compensation under the following heads are challenged by the claimant/petitioner - Extra Nourishment It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant that the claimant had been hospitalised for 14 days and therefore, the compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded is on the lower side. Taking into account the fact that the hospitalisation was for a period of about 14 days, I find that the appellant/claimant is entitled to a total amount of Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment. Pain and suffering. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant that in the light of the injuries sustained, an amount of Rs.75,000/- was claimed. However, the amount of Rs.35,000/- granted by the Tribunal is quite low and therefore, it may be increased to Rs.75,000/-. Going by Ext.A1 wound certificate, the following are the injuries - “1. Lacerated wound on the left ear. 2. Crush injury to the right hand:LW 7 cms x 5 cm, right forearm degloving injury with both bone fracture, friction abrasions distal forearm and hand. 3. Abrasion on right knee. 4. Fracture of distal radius. 5. Fracture of ulna.” In the light of the injuries sustained, I find that an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering would be just compensation. Future treatment expenses. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that though an amount of Rs.75,000/- was claimed towards future treatment expenses, no amount has been granted, which is a gross injustice done by the Tribunal and so the amount claimed may be granted. No evidence has been let in by the petitioner/claimant before the Tribunal regarding the future treatment that is stated to have been taken by her. However, taking into account the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant/petitioner, which includes a crush injury, I find that an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards future treatment expenses would be just compensation. Loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. The appellant/claimant under this head claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Tribunal granted Rs.15,000/-, which again is challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant. Loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. The appellant/claimant under this head claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Tribunal granted Rs.15,000/-, which again is challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant. Here, also taking into account the nature of injuries sustained by the injured, I find that an amount of Rs.35,000/- towards compensation for loss amenities and enjoyment in life can be granted. Compensation for disfiguration. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant that though an amount of Rs.5,000/- was claimed as compensation for disfiguration, no amount whatsoever has been granted, which is again another infirmity committed by the Tribunal. The disfiguration in the case on hand has been caused to the right hand of the appellant/claimant, who was aged 62 years at the time of the incident. She was a teacher at the time of the incident. Taking into account the fact that the claimant had sustained a crush injury and had also undergone a plastic surgery and skin grafting, I find that an amount of Rs.2,500/- towards compensation for disfiguration can be granted. 9. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent: Sl. No . Head of claim Amount claimed Amount Awarded by Tribunal Modified in appeal 1. Loss of earnings Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- (No Modification) 2. Transport to hospital Rs.4,000/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- (No Modification) 3. Extra nourishment Rs.40,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/- 4. Damage to clothing Rs.1,000/- Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/- (No Modification) 5. Treatment expenses Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.82,306/- Rs.82,306/- (No Modification) 6. Bystanders expenses Rs.20,000/- Rs.9,800/- Rs.9,800/- (No Modification) 7. Compensation for continuing permanent disability Rs.75,000/- Rs.84,000/- Rs.84,000/- (No Modification) 8. Compensation for pain and suffering Rs.75,000/- Rs.35,000/- Rs.50,000/- 9. Future treatment expenses Rs.75,000/- Nil Rs.15,000/- 10. Compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.35,000/- 11. Compensation for disfiguration Rs.5,000/- Nil Rs.2,500/- 12. Compensation for future loss of income 25,000/- Nil (No Modification) Total Claim is limited to Rs.4,00,000/- Rs.6,20,000/- Rs.2,93,106/- Rs.3,60,606/- In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.57,500/- (total compensation Rs.3,60,606/- that is, Rs.2,93,106/- granted by the Tribunal + Rs.57,500/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization (excluding the period of 87 days delay in filing the appeal) and proportionate costs. The 2 nd respondent/insurance company is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount before the Tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claimant/appellant at the earliest in accordance with law after making deductions, if any. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.