Arun V.M. v. Metilda Jacob and others

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 19TH MAGHA, 1945 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 1181 OF 2013`** ## **`AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 430/2010 OF THE PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE`** ## **`APPELLANT/PETITIONER:`** ``` ARUN V.M. AGED 23 YEARS S/O.MOHAN,RESIDING AT VENGASSERY HOUSE, NEAR NAMBIYANKAVU TEMPLE,P.O.MADAYIKONAM, MAPRANAM(VIA),IRINJALAKUDA,THRISSUR. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SRI.M.V.DAS SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS:`** |**`1`**|**`METILDA JACOB`**| |---|---| ||**`W/O.SEBASTIAN K JACOB,RESIDING AT HOUSE`**| ||**`NO.XIV/9697,P.O.UNIVERSITY,KOCHI.`**| |**`2`**|**`JOHN SEBASTIANEXPIRED`**| ||**`AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN,RESIDING AT`**| ||**`KOCHUPLACKAL HOUSE,P.O.KARUMPA,KOCHI.`**| |**`3`**|**`UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD`**| ||**`DIV.OFFICE WHITE LINES BUILDINGS,`**| ||**`KALLAI ROAD,KOZHIKODE.`**| |**`4`**|**`SAKEENA`**| ||**`W/O.ABOOBACKER,RESIDING AT 32/201 A`**| ||**`KORAKKATH HOUSE,CHELAVOOR,MOOZHIKKAL,`**| ||**`KOZHIKODE-673571.`**| |**`5`**|**`THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD`**| ||**`VARIKODAN BUILDING,NILAMBUR`**| ||**`ROAD,MANJERI.P.O,MALAPPURAM.`**| ||**`BY ADVS.`**| ||**`SRI.P.V.ANILKUMAR`**| ||**`SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN`**| ||**`SMT.T.C.SOWMIAVATHY`**| ||**`SMT.D.SARITHA`**| ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 1181 OF 2013 ``` ``` ..2.. ``` ## **J U D G M E N T** The appellant was the petitioner in O.P.(MV)No.430 of 2010 on the files of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. 2. The said claim petition was filed by the appellant, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 28.01.2008. According to him, the accident occurred, when the car in which he was travelling, hit a lorry parked on the roadside, and thereby causing serious injuries to him. The 2[nd] respondent was the driver of the said car, which was owned by the 1[st] respondent and insured with 3[rd] respondent. The 4[th] respondent was the registered owner of the lorry and 5[th] respondent was its insurer. 3. According to the appellant, he was a Computer Engineering student in NIT, Kozhikode and he was 23 years old at the time of the accident. It was also contended that, he sustained very serious injuries, and it resulted in physical disabilities. The claim petition was ``` MACA NO. 1181 OF 2013 ``` **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** submitted in such circumstances, seeking compensation. 4. The 1[st] respondent appeared and filed a written statement admitting ownership of the car. However, they denied the negligence on the part of the 2[nd] respondentthe driver of the car. The 3[rd] respondent filed an additional written statement attributing negligence on the part of the 4[th] respondent-driver of the lorry. However, they accepted the coverage of the policy for the car. They also disputed the quantum of compensation. 5. The evidence in this claim petition consists of Exts.A1 to A11 from the side of the appellant. The disability certificate issued by the Medical Board was marked as Ext.C1. After appreciating the materials placed on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car. The 3[rd] respondent being the insurer of the said car was held liable to pay the compensation. 6. The quantum of compensation was fixed at Rs.4,56,670/- and the 3[rd] respondent was directed to ``` MACA NO. 1181 OF 2013 ``` **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** deposit the said amount with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. This appeal is filed by the appellant in such circumstances, seeking enhancement of compensation. 7. Heard Adv.Sri. V.S. Chandrasekharan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Adv.Sri. P.M.M Najeeb Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent, and Adv.Sri. T.C.Sowmiavathy, the learned counsel appearing for the 5[th] respondent. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various heads, particularly under the head of disability are very low. The learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent opposed the same. 9. After careful analysis of the materials, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is to be noted that the monthly income of the appellant, fixed by the Tribunal for assessing the compensation was Rs.3,750/- which appears to be very ``` MACA NO. 1181 OF 2013 ``` **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** low. The accident occurred in 2008 and there is no dispute with regard to the averments raised by the appellant that, at the relevant time, he was a Computer Engineering student in NIT, Kozhikode. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Fathimath Zuhara @ Zuhra Razak & Another** (2016 (3) KLT 459), wherein a Division Bench of this Court took the monthly income of an Engineering student as Rs.12,000/- in respect of the accident occurred in the year 2005. In this case, I do not find any reason to take a different monthly income, and accordingly, it is fixed as Rs.12,000/-. 10. This is a case in which the appellant sustained 50% the whole body disability consequent to the injuries sustained in the accident. The nature of the injuries would clearly indicate that, it will significantly affect the future earning capacity of the appellant. This is particularly because, he was a Computer Engineering student in NIT, ``` MACA NO. 1181 OF 2013 ``` **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Kozhikode, and the field in which he was supposed to work is highly competitive, and with this nature of physical disability, he will have serious difficulties in building up his career in competition with other persons with all faculties and facilities. Therefore, this is a serious aspect which affects the earning capacity of the appellant and thereby resulting in adverse impact as far as the future prospects are concerned. Therefore, I find that this is a fit case in which the appellant has to be compensated, by taking into account the loss of future prospects as well. In the light of **National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)],** the addition in this regard has to be at 40%. Thus, while re-assessing the compensation with revised monthly income and future prospectus, the amount of compensation would come to Rs.18,14,400/- [(12,000 +40%) X 12 X 18 X 50/100]. The amount already awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.4,05,000/- and thus, the additional compensation would come to **Rs.14,09,400/-.** ``` MACA NO. 1181 OF 2013 ``` **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 11. When considering the other heads, it can be seen that the amount awarded for pain and suffering is only Rs.20,000/-, which is not reasonable, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. As mentioned above, he sustained very serious injuries and underwent 27 days of inpatient treatment. The medical records also indicate that, he underwent prolonged treatment, even after the discharge from the hospital. The injuries suffered by him include a head injury and a lung contusion. He suffered a fracture on the frontal bone and underwent a surgical procedure as well. Therefore, I am of the view that a further sum of **Rs.25,000/-** can be granted under the head of loss of pain and suffering. 12. Similarly, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of amenities was Rs.10,000/-. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, this is a case in which a bright student of computer science in a reputed college where admissions are on the basis of pure merit, had sustained serious injuries and disability ``` MACA NO. 1181 OF 2013 ``` **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** to the extent of 50% at the young age of 23 years. He has to live with those disabilities throughout his life. The injuries and disabilities are likely to affect his work culture as well, as the discomfort in carrying out the duties attached to the employment he is likely to secure, is immeasurable. Therefore, I am of the view that reasonable compensation has to be granted, taking note of the said aspects. In such circumstances, I deem it appropriate award a further sum of **Rs.40,000/-** under the said head. 13. Accordingly, the total compensation is determined as **Rs. 14,74,400/-** (Rs.14,09,400/- + 25,000/- + 40,000/-) In the result, this appeal is allowed. The award dated 05.08.2011 in OP(MV)No.430 of 2010 passed by the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode is hereby modified by granting an additional amount of **Rs.14,74,400/-** (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Seventy Four thousand Four Hundred only) and the said amount shall ``` MACA NO. 1181 OF 2013 ``` **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** be deposited by the 3[rd] respondent with interest at the rate as ordered by the Tribunal and proportionate costs, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, as the delay of 543 days was condoned by this Court on condition that, the appellants shall not be entitled for interest for the additional amount pertaining to the period of delay, the 3[rd] respondent shall be at liberty to exclude the said period while computing the interest on the additional compensation. **Sd/-** **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A,** **JUDGE** LU