Augustine K.J. v. Sindroo Joseph, Antony T.J. and The National Insurance Company Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/5TH KARTHIKA, 1938 MACA.No. 990 of 2012 () -----------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1691/2006 of M.A.C.T., ERNAKULAM DATED 16-02-2011 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: ----------------------------- AUGUSTINE K.J., AGED 39 YEARS KUREETHARA HOUSE,THYKOODAM,VYTTILA, POONITHURA VILLAGE. BY ADVS.SRI.C.ARUN PRASANTH SRI.A.S.BRIJESH SMT.ROOPA RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: --------------------------------- 1. SINDROO JOSEPH KALOOR VEEDU,THYKOODAM, KOCHI-682019. 2. ANTONY .T.J, S/O.JOHN,THALASSERY HOUSE, EAST OF NATIONAL LIBRARY, NETTOOR.P.O, MARADU-682304. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, - BRANCH NO:I, CHITTOOR ROAD, SOUTH JUNCTION, KOCHI-682016. ## R3 BY ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY R3 BY SRI.M.A.GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR & K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.** ## **========================== M.A.C.A. No.990 OF 2012** ## **==========================** Dated this the 27[th] day of October, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** _Jyothindranath, J._ This appeal is preferred against the award in O.P.(MV).No.1691 of 2006 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The claimant is the appellant. The challenge is against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2.When this appeal came up for admission, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that here is a case where a young plumber sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 25.3.2006. He sustained both bone fracture and was treated as inpatient for 12 days. He moved a claim petition before the Tribunal for a total compensation of `3,00,000/- whereas the Tribunal awarded **M.A.C.A.990/2012** 2 only a meagre amount of `61,015/-. It is also highlighted that out of the said amount, `22,615/- was granted towards reimbursement of medical bills. It is also brought to our notice that no amount awarded towards loss of earning during the treatment period. It is the submission that the compensation awarded on other heads is also on a lower side. 3.The learned counsel, Smt.Sarah Salvy, appearing for the insurance company submitted before us that a just compensation was awarded in this case. The monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is also reasonable when there is no evidence adduced by the appellant to the effect that he is a plumber by profession. After hearing the learned counsel and also going through the award, we feel that here is a case which can be disposed of, at the admission stage itself. 4.In this case, the appellant sustained gustilo's type I open both bone fracture. He was treated as inpatient for 12 days. Even though **M.A.C.A.990/2012** 3 he got a case that he is a plumber by profession, no oral or documentary evidence adduced to substantiate the said claim. But at the very same time, considering him as a manual labourer and also keeping in mind that the accident occurred in the year 2006, it will only be just and proper to consider a monthly income of `5,000/- for calculation purpose. It is to be remembered that in an accident occurred in 2004, the Apex Court considered a notional income of `4,500/- per month [ **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.** [ **(2011) 13 SCC 236].** In this case, the accident occurred in the year 2006. Thus, we are inclined to consider `5,000/- as the monthly income. No compensation is seen awarded towards loss of income during treatment period. This is a case where the appellant sustained fracture of both bones. Thus, taking the monthly income as `5,000/- and treatment period as 6 months, the appellant will be entitled for a compensation of `30,000/- (5000x6) on the head of loss of earning. Though it is a case of both bone fracture that also involving junction **M.A.C.A.990/2012** 4 area of the leg, the Tribunal only awarded a sum of `500/- towards transportation expenses. It is apparent that the appellant has to continue his treatment as out patient even after discharge from hospital. A sum of `1,500/- more awarded towards transportation expenses. Towards bystander's expenses, only a sum of `1,400/- is seen awarded. Considering a daily expense of `200/-, he will be entitled for `2,400/-. Thus, an additional sum of `1,000/- is awarded on the said head. Towards pain and suffering, only a sum of `20,000/is seen awarded. Considering the nature of the injuries, the appellant is granted an additional sum of `5,000/- on the said head. Considering the nature of the injuries and the place of injuries and age of the appellant, a sum of `10,000/- is granted on the head of loss of amenities. Thus, the appellant will be entitled for an additional compensation of `47,500/-. The said amount will bear interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. The insurance company shall pay the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The parties shall bear their **M.A.C.A.990/2012** 5 respective costs. This appeal is disposed of at his admission stage, as stated above. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **Sd/-** **K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH (JUDGE)** **spc/** **M.A.C.A.990/2012** 6 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** **M.A.C.A.990/2012** 7