George Thomas @ Biju Kunjumon v. Peter Pereira and The Divisional Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/4TH KARTHIKA, 1939 ## MACA.No. 89 of 2013 () ----------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 233/2010 of MACT,PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 10-10-2012 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: ----------------------- GEORGE THOMAS @ BIJU KUNJUMON S/O. GEORGEKUTTY, OTTEVATHU PADINJATTETHIL KALLUMKADAVU, PATHANAPURAM. ## BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- ## 1. PETER PEREIRA, S/O. DAVID PEREIRA CHARUVILA HOUSE (JULILAND) MUDIYAKODU, CHERUNNIYOOR PO, VARKKALA - 696 142 ## 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI-682 031 ## R2 BY SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR & B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JJ. ========================== M.A.C.A. No.89 OF 2013** **==========================** Dated this the 26[th] day of October, 2017 ## **JUDGMENT** _Sudheendra Kumar, J._ The appellant sustained injuries in a road traffic accident which occurred on 25.10.2009 at 4 p.m. The appellant was riding a motor cycle. At that time, a car bearing Reg.No.KL-16/D-7566, driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motor cycle and as a consequence, the appellant sustained injuries. The appellant was taken to the hospital and treated there as inpatient. 2. In connection with the injuries sustained by the appellant, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.9,04,890/- as compensation. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the second respondent. 4. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the first respondent. Therefore, the **M.A.C.A.89/2013** 2 second respondent, being the insurer of the vehicle, was directed to deposit the amount of compensation before the Tribunal. The above finding of the Tribunal is not under challenge. 5. The challenge in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant claimed that he was working abroad earning Rs.35,000/- per month as salary. He produced Ext.A19 salary certificate to substantiate his contention. However, there is no certification from the Embassy to the effect that the appellant is a permanent employee of the company. It appears from Ext.A19 that the appellant was a loading and unloading worker. There is no convincing material to prove the employment of the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly refused to accept the contention of the appellant that the appellant was working abroad earning Rs.35,000/- per month during the relevant period. The accident was during the year 2009. Therefore, in the absence of any document, we are fixing the notional monthly income of the appellant as Rs.8,000/- as against Rs.3,500/- fixed by the Tribunal. The **M.A.C.A.89/2013** 3 appellant was aged 29 years during the relevant period. Therefore, '17' must be the multiplier to be employed for the purpose of calculating the disability compensation as held by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)]. The appellant sustained 22% permanent disability as per Ext.A17 disability certificate issued by a duly constituted medical board. The Tribunal accepted the disability certified in Ext.A17 disability certificate. Since we have re-fixed the notional monthly income, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.3,59,040/(8000x12x17x22/100) as compensation towards permanent disability. Subtracting the amount of Rs.1,57,080/- awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,01,960/- as additional compensation under the said count. Since we have re-fixed the notional monthly income, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.96,000/- as compensation towards loss of earnings for one year. Subtracting the amount of Rs.42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.54,000/- as additional **M.A.C.A.89/2013** 4 compensation under the said count. The appellant sustained altered sensorium, fracture of shaft of femur, fracture of right patella and fracture of right tibia in the accident. The nature of injuries sustained by the appellant is lucidly stated in paragraph 9 of the award. The appellant had undergone treatment as inpatient for 68 days in the hospital. Considering the nature of the treatment undergone by the appellant, we are granting an additional amount of Rs.20,000/towards pain and suffering as the Tribunal awarded only Rs.40,000/under the said count. Considering the nature of the injuries and also the extent of permanent disability sustained by the appellant, we are granting an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards loss of amenities as the Tribunal awarded only Rs.20,000/under the said count. Thus, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,85,960/-, which is rounded off to Rs.2,86,000/-, as additional compensation. The above amount carries interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The second respondent, being the insurer of the vehicle, is directed to deposit the **M.A.C.A.89/2013** 5 amount of compensation before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appeal stands disposed of as above. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **Sd/-** **B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR (JUDGE)** **spc/** **M.A.C.A.89/2013** 6 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT** 7 ## **M.A.C.A.89/2013** **September, 2010**