Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2375 (KER)

Amal T Venu v. Shiju, S/O. Velappan

2025-09-08

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

body2025
JUDGMENT : Shoba Annamma Eapen, J. This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.715 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal. 2. The case of the claimant is that on 27.07.2013 at about 3.30 p.m., while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KL-44/B 9529, an autorickshaw bearing Reg. No.KL-6/D 9782 driven by the 1 st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle, whereby the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the Tribunal claiming a total  compensation of ?3,50,000/-. 3. The first respondent, driver of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent Insurance Company filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, but challenging the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal PW1 was examined and Exts. A1 to A10 were marked. 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 total compensation of ?2,27,100/- under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the 2 nd respondent being the insurer. Dissatis quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company. 5. The appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation under the following head:- Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was working as a Supervisor in a  Construction Company and though an amount of ?15,000/- was claimed as the monthly income of the appellant, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ?5,500/-. The learned counsel further submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ] , the monthly income ought to have been taken at ?9,000/-, since the accident is of the year 2013. It was also submitted that, as per the First Information Statement (FIS), the claimant had stated that he was working as a supervisor in a construction firm. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ] , the monthly income ought to have been taken at ?9,000/-, since the accident is of the year 2013. It was also submitted that, as per the First Information Statement (FIS), the claimant had stated that he was working as a supervisor in a construction firm. Considering the afore facts, I find it appropriate to re-fix the monthly income at ?10,000/- Loss of earnings:- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has taken only a period of six months for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings. Following are the injuries sustained by the appellant due to the accident: i) Fracture patella. ii) Avulsion fracture base of terminal phalanx right ring finger with mallet finger deformity. iii) Extensive laceration dorsal aspect of right foot with segmental loss of extensor tendons and loss of skin. iv)Multiple lacerated wounds posterior aspect of right leg over the tendo achillis. v) Multiple abrasion right knee, right big toe, forehead and upper lip. vi) Lacerated wound just above the right eyebrow. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, I find that a period of seven months can be taken for awarding compensation under the said head. Since the notional monthly income has been re-fixed at ?10,000/-, the total compensation payable under the said head would be ?70,000/- (10,000 x 7). The Tribunal had granted an amount of ?33,000/- under the said head. Thus there will be an additional amount of ?37,000/- under the afore head. Pain and suffering :- The learned Counsel for the appellant  submitted that though an amount of ?1,00,000/- was claimed by the appellant, the Tribunal has awarded only an amount of ?35,000/- under the head pain and sufferings. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained, I find that the total amount  payable under the said head can be fixed at ?40,000/-. Since the  Tribunal has awarded an amount of ?35,000/-, an additional  amount of ?5,000/- can be payable under the afore head. Permanent disability:- The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that for awarding compensation under the head permanent disability, the multiplier adopted by the tribunal was 17 instead of 18. Since the  Tribunal has awarded an amount of ?35,000/-, an additional  amount of ?5,000/- can be payable under the afore head. Permanent disability:- The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that for awarding compensation under the head permanent disability, the multiplier adopted by the tribunal was 17 instead of 18. Following the apex court judgment in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ 2010(2) KLT 802 (SC)] , I find that 18 is the correct multiplier to be adopted since the injured was aged 22 years at the time of accident. Since the appellant's monthly income is re-fixed at 10,000/-, following the judgments in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ 2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)] and Sarla Verma (supra), the compensation under the head of permanent disability is recalculated as thus: (10,000 x 12 x  18 x 5/100) ?1,08,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of ? 56,100/- under the afore head. Hence, the appellant is entitled for  an additional amount of ?51,900/- under the afore head. Bystander expenses:- The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ?6,000/- towards bystander’s expenses which is on the lower side. Considering the fact that the accident was in the year 2013 and the appellant had undergone 30 days inpatient treatment due to the accident, I deem it appropriate to award compensation towards bystander’s expenses @ ?300/- per day. Thus, he will be entitled to get a total compensation of ?9,000/- (300 x 30) towards bystander expenses. Since the tribunal already awarded an amount of ?6,000/-, there will be an additional compensation of ?3,000/- under the afore head. Extra nourishment:- The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ?5,000/- was claimed, the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ?3,750/- for extra nourishment. Considering the period of hospitalization, I am inclined to award a consolidated amount of ?5,000/- under the head extra nourishment. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for an additional amount of ?1,250/- under the afore head. Loss of amenities :- Though the appellant claimed an amount ?50,000/- under the head loss of amenities, the tribunal awarded only an amount of 30,000/-, 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 ?40,000/- towards loss of amenities. Loss of amenities :- Though the appellant claimed an amount ?50,000/- under the head loss of amenities, the tribunal awarded only an amount of 30,000/-, 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 ?40,000/- towards loss of amenities. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of ?10,000/-towards loss of amenities. 6. Though the appellant claimed enhancement of compensation under the other heads, on a perusal of the records available, I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads since it appears to be just and reasonable. Since the appeal is of the year 2016, I find it appropriate to fix the interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount. 7. Thus, the impugned award of the Tribunal is modified as follows:- Sl. No Head of Claim Amount claimed Amount awarded by the Tribunal Modi?ed in appeal Total compensation 1 Loss of earnings 1,80,000 33,000 37,000 70,000 2 Pain and su?erings 1,00,000 35,000 5,000 40,000 3 Loss of amenities 50,000 30,000 10,000 40,000 4 Medical treatment charges 1,25,000 61,669 Not modi?ed 61,669 5 Bystander expenses 6,000 3,000 9,000 6 Extra nourishment 5,000 3,750 1,250 5,000 7 Transportation charges 6,000 1,500 Not modi?ed 1,500 8 Compensation for permanent disability 2,00,000 56,100 51,900 1,08,000 TOTAL 6,66,000 limited to 3,50,000 2,27,019 1,08,150 3,35,169 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant is awarded an additional compensation of ?1,08,150/- (Rupees One lakh eight thousand one hundred and fifty only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 7.5% 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. 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. 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.