Muraleedharan T.K. @ Babu v. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd.

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 20TH KARTHIKA, ``` ``` 1943 ``` ``` MACA NO. 889 OF 2013 ``` ``` AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P(MV) 334/2010 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA, WAYANAD ``` ## `APPELLANT/PETITIONER:` ``` MURALEEDHARAN T.K. @ BABU, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.THANIYANKUTTY, THEKKETHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARIYARAM, MUTTIL POST, VYTHIRI TALUK. ``` ``` BY ADV.SMT.CELINE JOSEPH ``` ## `RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.3:` ``` THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, RAWTHER BUILDING, NEAR PINANGODE ROAD JUNCTION, MAIN ROAD, KALPETTA - 673 121. ``` ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` M.A.C.A No.889 of 2013 ``` 2 ## **`JUDGMENT`** ``` Aggrieved by the award dated 06.11.2012 in O.P.(M.V) No.334/2010 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, the petitioner moved before this Court by filing appeal arraying 3[rd] respondent alone as respondent herein by disputing quantum of compensation. ``` ``` 2.Brief facts of the case: ``` ``` On 13-02-2010 at about 6.15 p.m, while the petitioner was sitting on a motor bike bearing Reg.No.KL 56/1467, parked on the side of the Panamaram - Kalpetta public road, a car bearing Reg.No.KL-10W/6767, driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, from the opposite side, hit against the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner was thrown out of the bike and sustained serious injuries. The petitioner would seek for compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- from the driver, owner ``` 3 ## **`M.A.C.A No.889 of 2013`** ``` and the insurer of the offending vehicle. ``` ``` 3.The Tribunal granted Rs.52,980/- as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- ``` ``` 4.The learned counsel for the appellant would point out that the monthly income fixed as Rs.3,000/- is incorrect. According to the learned counsel for the appellant Rs.10,000/- was claimed as monthly income, being a wood cutter, was negatived by the Tribunal. Though the learned counsel for the appellant would concede the fact that no substantial evidence in support of the income was adduced before the Tribunal, she canvassed increase following the ratio inRamachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. : (2011) 13 SCC 236. This submission is not seriously opposed since inRamachandrappa's case (supra) Rs.4,500/- was fixed as monthly income of a coolie during 2004, by the Apex Court. Applying the same ratio, Rs.7,500/- is ``` 4 ## **`M.A.C.A No.889 of 2013`** ``` fixed as monthly income in this case also. ``` ``` 5.The main challenge raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is confined to grant of 'loss of earnings' and 'loss of disability income', apart from raising hands on the heads 'pain and sufferings' as well as 'loss of amenities'. ``` ``` 6.Dispelling the argument, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that reasonable amount, taking note of a criteria prevailed during the period of the award, was granted by the Tribunal and, therefore, substantial increase in the award is not warranted. ``` ``` 7.Having appraised the contentions, I am of the view that the appellant's claim to be valued on the basis of injury he sustained. In paragraph 10 of the award, the following injuries are shown: ``` ``` “1. Compound dislocation of PIP joint ``` 5 ## **`M.A.C.A No.889 of 2013`** ``` of ring and little finger left hand. ``` ``` 2.Type III acromic clavicular dislocation of left shoulder.” ``` ``` 8.According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant continued treatment for a period of one year though the impatient treatment is only for three days. ``` ``` 9.According to the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, since minor injury sustained, the Tribunal rightly granted three months 'loss of earnings' and no increase under that head is necessary. ``` ``` 10.Going by the nature of injuries, I am of the view that 'loss of earnings' can be granted for a period of four months. Thus, 'loss of earnings' is calculated as, ``` ``` 7,500x4 = 30,000 – 9,000 = 21,000/- more granted under the head 'loss of earnings'. ``` ``` 11.'Loss of disability income' is another challenge raised by the learned counsel for the ``` ``` M.A.C.A No.889 of 2013 ``` 6 ``` appellant. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, though the Medical Board as per Ext.C1, fixed the permanent disability at 4% as per Mc-Bride scheme (Body as a whole) in the same certificate 7% is shown as disability as per National Institute of Orthopedically Handicapped Scale (N.I.O.H). Therefore, 7% disability ought to be taken. The Tribunal followed the procedure for assessing disability by personally examining the appellant and finally fixed the disability at 4%. Such a finding entered into by the Tribunal in the matter of fixation of disability as 4% need not be interfered since fixation of disability is a matter involving personal examination of the Tribunal along with disability certificate. ``` ``` 12.Therefore, I am not inclined to increase disability at 4%. However, the disability income required to be recalculated on the basis of monthly income at Rs.7,500/-. ``` ``` M.A.C.A No.889 of 2013 ``` 7 ``` Therefore, disability income required to be re- calculated thus, ``` ``` 7,500x17x4x12% = 61,200/- ``` ``` Out of which, Rs.24,480/- was granted by the Tribunal and, therefore,Rs.36,720/- is granted as additional compensation under the head 'loss of disability income'. ``` ``` 13.Coming to the head 'pain and sufferings', the Tribunal granted Rs.8,000/-. In fact, some increase under the head 'pain and sufferings' is necessary having noticed the injuries. Therefore, Rs.10,000/- more under the head 'pain and sufferings' is granted. Rs.5,000/- alone was granted under the head of 'loss of amenities'. Therefore, Rs.5,000/- more under the head 'loss of amenities' is granted. Thus, Rs.72,720/- is liable to be granted as enhanced compensation. ``` ``` In the result, this appeal is allowed. It is held that the appellant is entitled to ``` 8 ## **`M.A.C.A No.889 of 2013`** ``` get Rs.1,25,700/- as compensation out of which Rs.52,980/- was granted by the Tribunal and the balance amount of Rs.72,720/- is granted as enhanced compensation with the same rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal payable by the respondent Insurance Company from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the same in the name of the appellant within two months from today. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ## **`A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE.`** ``` ww ```