Murali, S/o Narayanan v. T.R. BijU, Santhosh & M/S New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1940 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 30-07-2014 IN OP(MV) 1071/2009 of M.A.C.T.,PERUMBAVOOR APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------- MURALI, S/O.NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT ELAVUMKUDY HOUSE, VALAMPOOR KARA, MAZHUVANNOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADVS.SRI.L.RAM MOHAN SRI.M.AUBREY ABRAHAM ISAAC RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. T.R.BIJU, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, THOZHUTHINKAL HOUSE, VILANGU P.O., PIN-683561. 2. SANTHOSH, S/O.SUBRAMANYAN, KAVANATTU HOUSE, VILANGU, KIZHAKKAMBALAM-683562. 3. M/S.NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. OPPOSITE NEW STAND, TRIPUNITHURA-682301. R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW BY SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **K.Harilal, J.** ==================================== M.A.C.A.No.507/2015 ==================================== Dated this the 4[th] day of April, 2018. ## **JUDGMENT** 1.The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.M.V. No.1071/2009 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. The aforesaid application was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation for the bodily injury suffered by him in a road traffic accident. He claimed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation. The third respondent insurance company resisted the said claim, disputing the quantum of compensation claimed under various heads and the liability to indemnify the respondents 1 and 2, but Maca507/2015 -:2:- admitted the coverage of the policy. The insurance company contended that the second respondent, who had driven the offending vehicle at the time of accident had no driving licence. The Tribunal accepted the said contention and the third respondent insurance company was permitted to recover the amount from first and second respondents, jointly and severally. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal passed the impugned award, granting Rs.6,36,233/- as compensation to the petitioner. - 2.This appeal has been filed challenging the quantum of compensation granted under the heads, loss of dependency, pain and sufferings and loss of amenities. It is also contended that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal Maca507/2015 ## -:3:- is very low, particularly when the petitioner was a driver by profession at the time of accident. 3.According to the appellant/petitioner, he is a driver by profession and he was getting Rs.5,000/- per month, as income from his profession. But, no document has been produced to prove the said contention. So, the Tribunal has taken Rs.3,500/- as the monthly income. In _**Ramachandrappra v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd.**_ **[2011 (13) SCC 236]** , the Supreme Court held that in the case of an accident occurred in the year 2004, Rs.3,500/to Rs.4,500/- can be taken as the monthly notional income, in the absence of sufficient evidence to prove the exact income of the claimant or the victim, as the case may be. In Maca507/2015 -:4:- the instant case, the accident had occurred in the year 2009. Considering the long lapse of time after 2004, this Court is of the view that Rs.3,500/- is too low and therefore his claim of Rs.5,000/- is accepted as his monthly notional income. So, the petitioner is given Rs.30,000/- towards loss of earnings. Thus, the additional compensation granted under the said head is Rs.9,000/-. The petitioner is given Rs.4,05,000/- (5,000 x 12 x 15 x 45/100), as compensation towards loss of permanent disability. The additional compensation payable under this head is Rs.1,21,500/(4,05,000 - 2,83,500). 4.It has come out in evidence that he had undergone treatment as an inpatient for 108 days in three different hospitals and he had Maca507/2015 ## -:5:- undergone six surgeries. Ext.A7 wound certificate, coupled with Ext.A8 discharge summary, would give rise to an inference, beyond doubt that he had sustained grievous injuries and suffered pain for more than three months. Having regard to the long duration of the period under which he had suffered pain, the compensation for pain and sufferings would stand enhanced to Rs.60,000/-. The additional compensation payable under this head is Rs.10,000/-. - 5.Ext.X1 disability certificate shows that he has - 45% permanent disability. In view of the degree of disability shown in Ext.X1, the compensation for loss of amenities would stand enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. The additional compensation payable under this head is Maca507/2015 ## -:6:- Rs.10,000/-. 6.Thus, the petitioner is given a total additional compensation of Rs.1,50,000/[1,21,500 + 9,000 + 10,000 + 10,000]. The total compensation payable to the petitioner is Rs.7,86,733/- [6,36,233 + 1,50,000]. It is needless to say, the additional compensation also would carry interest as stipulated by the Tribunal. All other findings of the Tribunal would stand undisturbed and operative. The third respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the total compensation with interest, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the petitioner is allowed to withdraw the entire compensation with interest, after paying the court fee. Needless to say, the third Maca507/2015 ## -:7:- respondent insurance company is entitled to recover the said amount from respondents 1 and 2. - 7.The MACA is disposed of as above. All the pending interlocutory applications will stand closed. Sd/- **K.Harilal, Judge** sl. //True copy// P.S. To Judge