Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2513 (KER)

Rugmani W/o Sreedharan v. Sajeesh S/o Subramanian

2025-09-19

C.S.SUDHA

body2025
JUDGMENT : C.S. SUDHA, J. 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the claim petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.1142/2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 03/01/2020. The respondents herein are the respondents 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 claim petitioner, on 15/01/2013 at about 05:30 a.m., while he was standing at Amballur junction on the extreme western side of Pudukkad-Paliyekkara NH 47, car bearing registration No.KL-05-V-9255 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked her down, as a result of which she sustained grievous injuries. 3. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/driver remained ex parte. 4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy but denying negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the offending car. It was also contended that the amount claimed was excessive. 5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the respondents. 6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the offending car resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ?5,54,730/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioner has come up in appeal. 7. 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. 8. Heard both sides. 9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following heads is challenged by the claim petitioner: Notional income - It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the notional income of ?5,500/- fixed for a 59 year old coolie is on the lower side and hence, the same needs to be appropriately enhanced. 9.1. Going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. 9.1. Going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236 , the income of a coolie in the year 2013 is liable to be fixed at ?9,000/- per month. It is true that the claim petitioner has only claimed an amount of ?7,500/- as income. However, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the notional income can be fixed as ?9,000/- per month. Multiplier 10. The claim petitioner was 59 year old at the time of the incident and therefore, the correct multiplier is 9' and not 8' as taken by the Tribunal. Therefore, the multiplier to be applied shall be 9 '. The percentage of disability 11. Ext.A5 disability Certificate reads thus: “ DISABILITY CERTIFICATE Mrs Rukmani, 67 years, Inchody (H) Kaloor PO, Thrissur was examined on 12/03/2019. As per treatment reports (discharge card and wound certificate), the clinet was involved in an alleged history of RTA. Treated at Jubilee Mission Medical College and research institute, DOA: 15/01/2013, DOD: 11/02/2013,H.P No: S044798. Injuries •Fracture right clavicle •Fracture both bones right forearm •Fracture right tibia •Fracture right middle finger •Fracture left superior pubic rami •Ascites and pleural effusion right with partial collapse of lung Treatment details ORIF Clavicle •ILN right tibia •ORIF right forearm •Removal implant of right ulna followed by nailing •Laprotomy On Examination Right forearm Pain and swelling right wrist •Deformity right wrist •Difficulty in taking weight •Difficulty in eating •Grip strength decreased •Cylindrical grip decreased •Flexion of right elbow decreased by 20% •Supination right forearm decreased by 80%, pronation full •Extension at wrist right absent •Right forearm muscle weakness by grade 1 •X-ray right forearm non-union right forearm with implant in situ, malunited ulnar fracture with nail in situ, arthrosis of radio-carpal joint. •X-ray middle finger right: malunited, rotated and angulated right middle phalanx. Right tibia and Pubic rami left •Pain right knee joint •Stiffness knee right •Burning sensation right leg •Pain and swelling right calf •Thigh muscle weakness by grade 1 •Calf muscle weakness by grade 1 •Difficulty in squatting •Difficulty in ascending and descending steps •Difficulty in cross-legged sitting •Flexion of knee decreased by 20%, extension decreased by 10% •X-ray right tibia: malunited fracture right tibia and fibula with implant in situ. •X-ray pelvis: malunited left superior pubic rami Right clavicle and lungs •Pain right shoulder Recurrent episodes of cough and chest pain •Exertion dsyponea on during work •Difficulty in lifting weight •Difficulty in overhead abduction •Numbness and paresthesia of right hand on doing work •Recurrent •Flexion, extension by 20%, abduction by 30 and rotation of right shoulder by 20% decreased •X-ray right clavicle: malunited fracture clavicle with implant in situ •Xray chest: patchy opacities of upper and middle lower of lung right side-suggestive of lung injury •Frequent complaints of attacks of abdominal pain, associated with disturbances in bowel (constipation), nausea and vomiting. Split up percentages "1" Right forearm-24% •Pain and swelling right wrist-1% •Difficulty in taking weight-2% •Difficulty in eating-2% •Grip strength decreased-2% •Cylindrical grip decreased-2% •Supination right forearm decreased by 80%, pronation full, Extension at wrist right absent-4% •Right forearm muscle weakness by grade 1-3% •Non-union right forearm with implant in situ, malunited ulnar fracture with nail in situ, arthrosis of radio-carpal joint-5% •Malunited, rotated and angulated right middle phalanx.-3% 2. Right tibia and Pubic rami left-20% •Pain right knee joint-1% Burning sensation right leg-1% •Thigh muscle weakness by grade 1, Calf muscle weakness by grade 1-3% •Difficulty in squatting-2% •Difficulty in ascending and descending steps 2% •Difficulty in cross-legged sitting-2% •Flexion of knee decreased by 20%, extension decreased by 10%-4% •Malunited fracture right tibia and fibula -3% •Malunited left superior pubic rami-2% 3. malunited fracture clavicle with subjective symptoms of circulatory disturbances-8% 4. Frequent complaints of attacks of abdominal pain, associated with disturbances in bowel constipation), nausea and vomiting-10% Her whole body permanent disability is assessed to be 45.2% (fourty five decimal two percent) as per manual devised by Ministry Of Social Justice and Empowerment, Govt. Of India, using combination formulae. In the light of the dictum in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , it is the functional disability that needs to be fixed for assessing compensation for permanent disability. Here the claim petitioner is a coolie and therefore, the difficulties caused, which have been noted in Ext.A5 disability certificate, would certainly affect the functioning or her efficiency as coolie and therefore, I find that the functional disability can be fixed as 50% Addition to be made towards future prospects 12. Here the claim petitioner is a coolie and therefore, the difficulties caused, which have been noted in Ext.A5 disability certificate, would certainly affect the functioning or her efficiency as coolie and therefore, I find that the functional disability can be fixed as 50% Addition to be made towards future prospects 12. As the disability has been fixed as 50% and as the age of the claim petitioner is 59 year old, 10% of her established income that needs to be added towards future prospects. Loss of amenities 13. An amount of ?50,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal awarded an amount of ?20,000/-. In the light of the injuries and the disabilities sustained, I find an amount of ?50,000/- as claimed under this head would be just and reasonable. Pain and suffering 14. An amount of ?1,00,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal awarded an amount of ?30,000/-. In the light of the multiple fractures sustained, I find that an amount of ?80,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable. 15. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent : S. No. Head of claim Amount claimed Amount Awarded by Tribunal Modified in appeal 1 Loss of earning ?85,000/- ?55,000/- ?90,000/- (?9,000/-x 10 months) 2 Medical expenses ?2,00,000/- ?1,82,530/- ?1,82,530/- (No modification) 3 Bystander expenses -- ?8,600/- ?8,600/- (No modification) 4 Transportation expenses ?10,000/- ?5,000/- ?5,000/- (No modification) 5 Extra nourishment ?5,000/- ?5,000/- ?5,000/- (No modification) 6 Damage to clothing etc. ?1,000/- ?1,000/- ?1,000/- (No modification) 7 Pain and suffering ?1,00,000/- ?30,000/- ?80,000/- 8 Compensation for continuing or permanent disability ?5,00,000/- ?2,37,600/- ?5,34,600/- (?9,000/-+10% of ?9,000/)- x12x9x50/100) 9 Compensation for the loss of earning power -- -- -- (No modification) 10 Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life ?50,000/- ?20,000/- ?50,000/- 11 Compensation for disfigurement ?20,000/- -- -- (No modification) 12 Personal assistance ?20,000/- ?10,000/- ?10,000/- (No modification) 13 Future treatment ?50,000/- -- -- (No modification) 14 Compensation for shortened expectancy of life ?20,000/- -- -- (No modification) Total ?10,61,000/- ?5,54,730/- ?9,66,730/- In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of ?4,12,000/- (total compensation =?9,66,730- that is, ?5,54,730/- granted by the Tribunal + ?4,12,000/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs. The third respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the compensation with interest and costs before the Tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On deposit of the compensation amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claim petitioner at the earliest in accordance with law after making deductions, if any.