Latha Prakash v. Sanoop V.S., C. Hareendran and Oriental Insurance Company Limited

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 3RD MAGHA, 1945 ``` ``` MACA NO. 502 OF 2013 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OP(MV) 241/2009 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD ``` ## **`APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:`** ``` LATHA PRAKASH W/O.PRAKASH T.V., RESIDING AT JAYANTHI NIVAS, NEAR A.L.P.SCHOOL, T.T.ROAD, P.O.BEKAL, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADV SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1SANOOP V.S. AGED 26 YEARS S/O.SIVANANDAN, V.KALYAN NIVAS, EACHUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT - 670001 2C.HAREENDRAN S/O.P.K.ANANTHAN, 614 CHADRABETH HOUSE, MOWANCHERRY P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT - 670001 3THE BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THANA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT670001 BY ADV SRI.A.R.GEORGE ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 502 OF 2013 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** ``` The appellant was the petitioner in OP(MV) No.241/2009 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod. The said claim petition was submitted by her, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 13/10/2008. The accident occurred when the K.S.R.T.C Bus in which he was travelling, collided with a Mini Lorry bearing registration No. KL-13N-9129. The said Lorry was driven by the 1[st] respondent, owned by the 2[nd] respondent, and was insured with the 2[nd] respondent. ``` ``` 2.According to the appellant, she was a tailor by profession, aged 38 years, with a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. It was averred that she suffered serious injuries that resulted in ``` ``` MACA NO. 502 OF 2013 ``` ``` 3 ``` ``` physical disability as well. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances. ``` ``` 3.The 3[rd] respondent alone contested the matter by filing a written statement wherein they admitted the coverage of policy for the Mini Lorry. However, they denied negligence on the part of the driver of the said vehicle, and they disputed the quantum of compensation as well. ``` ``` 4.The evidence in this case consists of Exts. A1 to A5 from the side of the appellants. The Disability Certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Kanjangad, was marked as Ext. X1. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the 1[st]respondent in driving the vehicle and being the insurer; the 3[rd] respondent was held liable to pay the ``` ``` MACA NO. 502 OF 2013 ``` ``` 4 ``` ``` compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.2,28,550/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited by the 3[rd ]respondent with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. This appeal is submitted by the appellant seeking enhancement of compensation in such circumstances. ``` ``` 5.Heard Smt. R. Padmakumari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.A.R. George, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. ``` ``` 6.The only issue to be considered in this case is whether the compensation quantified by the Tribunal was reasonable or not. It is seen from the records that even though a monthly income of Rs.6,000/- was claimed, the Tribunal ``` ``` MACA NO. 502 OF 2013 ``` ``` 5 ``` ``` took only Rs.3,000/-, which appears to be on the lower side. It is to be noted that the accident occurred in the year 2008. In Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236]’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to take the monthly income of an ordinary worker without any skills as Rs.4,500/- even without any evidence. Therefore, the amount of Rs.6,000/- claimed as monthly income for the year 2008 appears to be reasonable and therefore, the same can be accepted. The other parameters adopted by the Tribunal appear to be reasonable, and hence, the same can be retained. Hence, while reassessing the compensation with the revised monthly income, the compensation under the head of disability would come to Rs.2,16,000/- (6000x12x15x20/100). The amount already awarded ``` ``` 6 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 502 OF 2013`** ``` by the Tribunal under the head is Rs.1,08,000/- and thus, the additional compensation under this head would come to Rs.1,08,000/-. In addition to the same, the appellant is found entitled to some additional compensation under the head of loss of earnings as well. It is discernible from the records that she sustained the following injuries in the accident:- ``` - `“(i) Fracture on the right arm, Laceration right arm with fracture arm bone (humerus).` - `(ii) Laceration right elbow with fracture forearm bone(Olecrenon).”` ``` 7.The documents would also indicate that she availed inpatient treatment for a period of 11 days, and even thereafter, she was under continuous treatment for a long period. In such circumstances, I am of the view that, for ``` ``` MACA NO. 502 OF 2013 ``` ``` 7 ``` ``` assessing the compensation for loss of earnings, four months can be taken, as she might have been prevented from pursuing her employment during the said period. This would result in an additional compensation of Rs.15,000/- (6000x4-9000). ``` ``` 8.The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering was only Rs.15,000/-. Considering the nature of the injuries as referred to above and the prolonged treatment she had undergone, a further sum of Rs.10,000/- is granted. When coming to the question of loss of amenities, it is seen that no amount is awarded by the Tribunal. Considering the fact that the appellant sustained serious injuries and physical disability to the tune of 20% at the age of 38 years, a reasonable amount has to be granted for ``` ``` MACA NO. 502 OF 2013 ``` ``` 8 ``` ``` loss of amenities. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant an amount of Rs.20,000/- under the said head. Thus, the total additional compensation is determined as Rs.1,53,000/- (108000+15000+10000+20000). ``` ``` In the result, this appeal is allowed. The award dated 21/07/2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod in OP(MV) No.241/2009 is hereby modified by granting an additional compensation of Rs.1,53,000/-(Rupees one lakh fifty three thousand only) which shall be deposited by the 3rd 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 copy of this judgment. However, it is clarified that as the ``` ``` MACA NO. 502 OF 2013 ``` ``` 9 ``` ``` delay of 66 days in filing the appeal was condoned by this Court on condition that, if the compensation is enhanced, the appellant would not be entitled to interest for the said period, the 3rd respondent shall be entitled to exclude the said period while computing the interest on the additional compensation. ``` ``` Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE ``` ``` sms ```