Raghunath D. v. Praveenkumar M.V., Arjun G. Padmanabhan, The National Insurance Company Limited, Sheenson Solamon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 18TH MAGHA, 1939 MACA.No. 1473 of 2014 AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 413/2011 of M.A.C.T.,ERNAKULAM DATED 20-03-2014 APPELLANT(S) RAGHUNATH D, S/O.DASAN, AGED 41, CHAKALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KURICHIRA COLONY KUREEKKAD P.O., KUREEKKAD VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP SMT.T.MANASY RESPONDENT(S): 1. PRAVEENKUMAR M.V. S/O.ACHUTHAN, KALYANI NIVAS TEMPLE GATE P.O. - THALASSERY, KANNUR. 2. ARJUN G.PADMANABHAN 18/292, CHARUSREE, THRIPUNITHURA P.O., ERNAKULAM. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ERNAKULAM. ## 4. SHEENSON SOLAMON PULICKAL HOUSE, NEW CENTURY CLUB, VENNALA P.O., ERNAKULAM. R3 BY SC SRI.A.R.GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **K.Harilal, J.** ==================================== M.A.C.A.No.1473/2014 ==================================== Dated this the 7[th] day of February, 2018. ## **JUDGMENT** - 1.The appellant is the petitioner, who obtained the impugned award granting `4,99,420/- as compensation to him in O.P.(MV)No.413/2011 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The said application was filed under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming an amount of `9,00,000/- as compensation for the bodily injuries and consequential disability suffered by him as a result of a road traffic accident. According to him, on 14.12.2010 at about 1.15 p.m., while he was walking along Thiruvankulam Maca1473/2014 -:2:- Panchayat road, the offending motor cycle, owned by the second respondent and ridden by the first respondent came in a rash and negligent manner, hit him and he has sustained grievous injuries. According to him, the accident was caused by the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by the first respondent and thereby the second respondent is liable to pay compensation to him and the third respondent with whom the vehicle was insured is liable to indemnify the second respondent by paying compensation. The respondent resisted the said contention, but the 3[rd] respondent admitted the coverage of the insurance policy. Both parties adduced evidence and after considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal passed the impugned award granting Maca1473/2014 ## -:3:- - `4,99,420/- as compensation to the petitioner. The inadequacy and correctness of the quantum of compensation determined under various heads - of claim are challenged in this appeal. - 2.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the third respondent insurance company. - 3.It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner that the amount determined as the monthly income is very low, considering the fact that the petitioner was a barber by profession at the time of accident. The Tribunal failed to consider Ext.A12 identity card issued by the Welfare Board of Barbers and Beauticians to the petitioner in its correct perspective while determining the quantum of Maca1473/2014 ## -:4:- monthly income. The amount granted towards transport expenses is also inadequate in view of the requirement of prolonged treatment and the nature of injuries suffered by him. The compensation granted for permanent disability is disproportionate with the actual disability suffered by him. It is also contended that the amount granted under the head 'pain and sufferings' is inadequate. The Tribunal discarded the claim under loss of amenities and no amount was granted under the said head. - 4.Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the insurance company advanced arguments to justify the amount granted under various heads. According to him, the amount determined under the head, pain and sufferings, transportation, loss of earnings etc. are just and reasonable, Maca1473/2014 ## -:5:- in view of the evidence available on record. - 5.It has come out in evidence by Ext.A12 that the petitioner was a barber by profession at the time of accident. Ext.A12 shows that the Kerala Thozhilali Welfare Board has introduced Kerala Barbers Welfare Scheme for Barbers and Beauticians and he is a member of the said Scheme. The name of his barber shop is 'Choice Hair Dresses'. There is no reason to doubt his claim that he is a barber by profession. The accident occurred in the year 2010. In _**Ramachandrappra v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd.**_ **[2011 (13) SCC 236]** the Supreme Court held that even in the case of accident occurred in the year 2004, `3,500/- to `4,500/- can be taken as the notional income. In view of the said decision, this court finds Maca1473/2014 ## -:6:- that the Tribunal is not justified in fixing the notional income as `4,000/- per month, when it stands proved that he was a barber by profession at the time of accident. Therefore, the monthly income of the petitioner would stand enhanced and modified to `6,000/- per month and the same would reflect in the quantum of compensation for loss of earnings and permanent disability. The Tribunal is justified in taking six months, for granting compensation for loss of earnings. He is given `36,000/under the head, loss of earnings (6,000 x 6). Thus, he is entitled to get an additional compensation of `12,000/- under the said head. Similarly, the petitioner is given `1,51,200/as compensation for permanent disability (6000 x 12 x 15 x 14/100). Thus he is entitled to Maca1473/2014 ## -:7:- - get an additional compensation of `50,400/- - under the said head. As rightly pointed out, - `10,000/- was granted for pain and sufferings and `1,000/- for transportation. This court is - of the view that the said compensation is inadequate and the same would stand enhanced to - `4,000/- and `20,000/- respectively. Thus the petitioner is entitled to get an additional compensation of `3,000/- and `10,000/- as - additional compensation under the head transportation expenses and compensation for pain and sufferings. - 6.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel - for the petitioner, no amount was granted for loss of amenities. The wound certificate shows that he has sustained grievous injuries. Ext.C1 report issued by the medical board shows Maca1473/2014 -:8:- that he has 14% disability. It is to be remembered that he is a barber by profession and the disability pointed out by the medical board would affect his future convenience and comfort while doing his work in a standing position, as a barber. Thus, the Tribunal has omitted to consider the said claim under the head, loss of amenities. Considering the nature of profession of a barber, who is expected to work always in a standing position, the petitioner is given `25,000/- for loss of amenities. The petitioner is given `1,00,400/as additional compensation. Thus, the total compensation payable to the petitioner is `5,99,820/-(`4,99,420/- + `1,00,400/-). All other findings of the Tribunal will stand undisturbed and operative. Needless to say, Maca1473/2014 -:9:- the said total amount will carry interest as stipulated by the Tribunal. 7.The MACA is allowed to the above extent. Sd/- **K.Harilal, Judge** sl. /True copy/ P.S. To Judge