Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2376 (KER)

Prakasan (Died) v. Manoj K, S/O. K. Kunhiraman

2025-09-08

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

body2025
JUDGMENT : Shoba Annamma Eapen, J. This appeal is filed by the claimant and the legal heirs of the claimant in O.P (MV) No.383 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal. 2. According to the appellants/claimants, on 12.12.2011 at about 5.15 a.m., while the original claimant was travelling in a tempo traveller bearing registration No.KL-13-V-1668 along NH 17 road, due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent, driver of the tempo traveller, it collided with a Tata Sumo bearing registration No.KL-43-2810 while trying to overtake a car, and as a result, the original claimant sustained serious injuries. The original claimant approached the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of ?10,05,000/-. During the pendency of the appeal, the original claimant succumbed to the said injuries on 27.12.2020 and the legal heirs are impleaded as supplemental appellants 2 to 5 in the appeal as per order dated 9/04/2021 in I.A.No.1/2021. 3. Though notice was served on the respondents, the first and second respondents, who were the owner and the driver of the tempo traveller respectively remained absent and were set ex parte before the Tribunal. Respondents four to six were the owner, driver and the insurer of the tata sumo respectively. Respondents three and six, the insurer of the tempo traveller as well as the tata sumo, filed written statements admitting the insurance policy but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. The fourth respondent filed a written statement, admitting the ownership of the tata sumo and the fifth respondent filed a written statement admitting that he was the driver of the Tata sumo. He contended that he had a valid driving licence and badge to drive the vehicle during the relevant time of accident. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A15 were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the second respondent and awarded a sum of ?3,11,660/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, have come up in appeal. 4. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, have come up in appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants claims enhancement mainly under the following heads:- I. Notional Income The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the original claimant was a coconut climber at the time of the accident and had claimed a notional income of ?4,000/- per month and the Tribunal had taken the same as his income while awarding compensation. 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 of a coolie ought to have been taken at ?8,000, since the accident is of the year 2011 and sought for an enhancement of the income fixed. The learned standing counsel for the insurance company, on the other hand, submitted that he had claimed only an amount of ?4,000/-. Though the income claimed by the appellants is only ?4,000/-, in order to award a just and reasonable compensation and following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at ?8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Only). II. Loss of earnings The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has taken only a period of ten months for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings. It is further submitted that the original claimant was under treatment from 12.12.2011 to 12.10.2012, totalling to 203 days, as stated in paragraph 2 of the award. Even after being discharged from the hospital, he was probably not in a fit state to continue with his job. Considering the afore fact, I find that a period of one year can be taken for awarding compensation under the said head. Since the notional monthly income has been re-fixed at ?8,000/-, the total compensation payable under the said head would be ?96,000/- (8,000 x 12). The Tribunal had granted an amount of ?40,000/- under the said head. Thus there will be an additional amount of ?56,000/- (Rupees Fifty Six Thousand Only) under the afore head. III. Since the notional monthly income has been re-fixed at ?8,000/-, the total compensation payable under the said head would be ?96,000/- (8,000 x 12). The Tribunal had granted an amount of ?40,000/- under the said head. Thus there will be an additional amount of ?56,000/- (Rupees Fifty Six Thousand Only) under the afore head. III. Permanent disability The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, as per Ext.A13 disability certificate, the percentage of disability was assessed as 17%. However, the Tribunal had reduced the percentage of disability to 15%, on the ground that the certificate was not issued by a duly constituted Medical Board. The doctor who issued Ext.A13 disability certificate was examined as PW1 before the Tribunal and he deposed that the disability certificate was issued after thoroughly examining the original claimant. Taking into account the afore fact, I am inclined to accept Ext.A13 and fix the permanent disability at 17%. Accordingly, 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 total compensation payable under the afore head is recalculated thus: ?2,12,160/- (8,000 x 12 x 13 x 17/100). The Tribunal has granted an amount of ?93,600/- under the afore head. Thus there will be an additional amount of ?1,18,560/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Only) under the afore head, permanent disability. IV . Pain and sufferings Though the appellants claimed an amount of ?1,00,000/- towards the head pain and sufferings, the Tribunal had granted only an amount of ?25,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the original claimant as well as the year of accident, I find it appropriate to enhance the total compensation payable under the said head at ?40,000/-. Thus there will be an additional amount of ?15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) under the afore head. V. Loss of amenities On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the Tribunal had granted only an amount of ?20,000/- under loss of amenities, which is on the lower side. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the original claimant as well as the loss of enjoyment in life, I find that an additional amount of ?20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) under the said head would be just and reasonable. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the original claimant as well as the loss of enjoyment in life, I find that an additional amount of ?20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) under the said head would be just and reasonable. Thus the total compensation payable under the said head would be ?40,000/-. VI. Bystander’s expenses The learned counsel for the appellants submits that though an amount of ?1,00,000/- was claimed by the appellants towards the afore head, the Tribunal had granted only ?4,000/- for 203 days in-patient treatment of the original claimant. Considering the year of accident as well as the period of hospitalisation, I am inclined to grant a consolidated amount of ?50,000/- under the afore head. Hence there will be an additional enhancement of ?46,000/- (Rupees Forty Six Thousand Only) under the afore head. VII.Extra nourishment The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal had granted only a meagre amount of ?4,000/- under the head extra nourishment. Considering the year of accident as well as the period of hospitalisation, I am inclined to grant a consolidated amount of ?30,000/- under the afore head. Thus there will be an additional amount of ?26,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Thousand Only) under the afore head. 6. Though the appellants claimed enhancement of compensation under 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 reasonable to award interest @ 7.5% for the enhanced amount. 7. Thus, the impugned award of the Tribunal is modified as follows: Sl. Since the appeal is of the year 2016, I find it reasonable to award interest @ 7.5% for the enhanced amount. 7. Thus, the impugned award of the Tribunal is modified as follows: Sl. No. Head of Claim Amount claimed (in Rs.) Amount awarded by the tribunal (in Rs.) Amount modified in appeal (in Rs.) Total compensation 1 Loss of earnings 48,000 40,000 56,000 96,000 2 Transportation expenses 50,000 4,000 (not modified) 4,000 3 Extra nourishment 5,000 4,000 26,000 30,000 4 Damage to clothings 2,000 500 (not modified) 500 5 Bystander’s expense 1,00,000 4,000 46,000 50,000 6 Medical expenses 2,00,000 1,20,560 not modified) 1,20,560 7 Pain and sufferings 1,00,000 25,000 15,000 40,000 8 Permanent disability 4,00,000 93,600 1,18,560 2,12,160 9 Loss of earning power 50,000 20,000 20,000 40,000 10 Loss of amenities 11 Future treatment expenses 50,000 - - - Total amount (Claim limited to) 10,05,000 3,11,660 2,81,560 5,93,220 Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the appellants/claimants are awarded an additional compensation of ? 2,81,560/- (Rupees Two Lakh Eighty One Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Only) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate cost. The third 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 claimants shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and Bank details before the third 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 third respondent, insurance company to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellants at the earliest, in accordance with law.