Abraham P.J. v. Baiju (Deleted), Santosh (Deleted) and The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 4TH MAGHA, 1939** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 01.03.2008 IN OP(MV) NO. 987/2001 of M.A.C.T.,KOZHIKODE** **APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:** **-------------------** **ABRAHAM.P.J., PANDAKASALAYIL HOUSE, KATTIKALLU, PO.PALENKARA, MALAPPURAM.** **BY ADV.SMT.K.V.RESHMI** **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **------------------------** ***1. BAIJU (DELETED), S/O. KUMARAN, ALINGAL PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, PO.,EDAKKARA, CHEMBAMTHITTA, MALAPPURAM.** ## ***2. SANTHOSH(DELETED),** **S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN,AGED 35, MUTHOLAKKAL HOUSE, PO,CHERUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE.** **3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, A.N.BUILDING, HOSPITAL ROAD, NILAMBUR.** **RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2* ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 25.10.2017 IN I.A. NO. 3832 OF 2017.** **R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.KESAVANKUTTY** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **DST** ## **K. HARILAL, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =** **M.A.C.A.No.235 of 2010** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** _Dated this the 24[th] day of January, 2018_ ## **J U D G M E N T** The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.987 of 2001, on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, _(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal')_ , Kozhikode. The said petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 _(hereinafter referred to as 'the M.V. Act')_ , claiming compensation for the damages suffered by him in a road accident. The parties are referred to as in the Original Petition. 2. According to the petitioner, on 18.11.2000, at about 12 noon, the petitioner was riding a bicycle through Edakkara - Palenkara road keeping the side and when it reached in front of a Muslim Palli, it was hit by an offending jeep bearing **M.A.C.A.No. 235 of 2010** **-: 2 :-** Registration No.KL-10/F 6481, which came from the opposite side and due to the impact of the hit, he was thrown away, fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as an inpatient for 18 days in Medical College Hospital, Kozhicode. He has partially lost his eye sight and not able to do any work as was doing before the accident. He claimed Rs.3,00,000/-, as compensation for the damages caused to him by the accident. The 3[rd] respondent Insurance Company admitted coverage of the vehicle under the policy issued to the 2[nd] respondent; but disputed the damage claimed under various heads of claim. 3. After considering the rival contentions opposing the claim for compensation, the Tribunal passed the impugned award granting Rs.1,24,197/- as ## **M.A.C.A.No. 235 of 2010** ## **-: 3 :-** compensation for the damages suffered by him. This appeal is filed assailing the inadequacy and disproportionationality of the quantum of compensation determined under various heads of claim. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the quantum of compensation determined under the heads 'loss of earnings', 'loss of amenities', 'expenses for transportation' and 'permanent disability' is inadequate and disproportionate with the actual damage suffered by him and the expenses met in connection with the accident. It is also contended that the monthly income determined by the Tribunal is very low, in view of the legal position settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court. So also, the Tribunal omitted to grant **M.A.C.A.No. 235 of 2010** ## **-: 4 :-** compensation to meet the 'bystander expenses'. 5. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Insurance Company advanced arguments to justify the quantum of compensation determined under the aforesaid heads. According to him, the amount determined under various heads are just and proper, in view of the evidence available on record. 6. In view of the submissions at the Bar, the short point that arises of consideration in this appeal is, is the Tribunal justified in determining the quantum of compensation under various heads of claim referred above? Going by the impugned award, it is seen that the petitioner was aged 37 years at the time of accident and according to him, he was a rubber tapper getting Rs.6,000/- per month as ## **M.A.C.A.No. 235 of 2010** ## **-: 5 :-** income. But, no document has been produced by him to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal is justified in taking notional income. But, this Court is of the view that Rs.2,000/- is inadequate, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in _**Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited**_ [(2011) 13 SCC 236]. In the above view, the monthly income will stand enhanced and modified to Rs.3,500/- from Rs.2,000/-. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.1,15,200/- under the head 'permanent disability' and he is entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs.38,400/- under the above head. Rs.6,000/- was given for 'loss of earnings' and the same will stand enhanced to Rs.10,500/-(3,500 x 3) and in this account, he is ## **M.A.C.A.No. 235 of 2010** ## **-: 6 :-** entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs.4,500/-. Rs.12,500/- was granted for 'loss of amenities'. The said amount is inadequate and the same will stand enhanced to Rs.15,000/- and he is entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs.2,500/-. 7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no amount was granted as 'bystander expenses'. It has come out in evidence that he was treated in the hospital as an inpatient for 20 days. In the above account, he is entitled to get Rs.3,000/- and the same is granted. Similarly, Rs.3,000/was granted under the head 'transportation, 'damage to clothing', 'extra nourishment' etc. This Court is of the view that the said amount is inadequate, in view of the fact that ## **M.A.C.A.No. 235 of 2010** ## **-: 7 :-** he continued his treatment after discharging from the hospital. Therefore, the said amount will stand enhanced to Rs.7,000/- and the petitioner is entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs.4,000/- under the said head. Thus, the additional amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.52,400/(38,400 + 4,500 + 2,500 + 3,000 + 4,000). Thus, the total compensation payable to the petitioner is Rs.1,76,597/-. It is needless to say that a total compensation payable to the petitioner would carry interest as stipulated by the Tribunal. All other findings in the impugned award will stand undisturbed and operative. The appeal was filed with a delay of 522 days. It is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to get interest for 522 days. **M.A.C.A.No. 235 of 2010** **-: 8 :-** This Motor Accident Claims Appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. Sd/- **K. HARILAL** **JUDGE** //True copy// P.A. To Judge DST