Rajavally @ Seetha v. Anil Kumar and others

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 MACA NO. 2920 OF 2014 ``` ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 27.06.2014 IN OP(MV) 368/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,PUNALUR ``` ## **`APPELLANT/PETITIONER:`** ``` RAJAVALLY @ SEETHA D/O.GOPALA PILLAI, PULARI, NEDUVATHOOR, NEELESWARAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1G.ANILKUMAR S/O.GOPINATHAN, ANIL VILASOM, KIZHAKKE MARANADU, EZHUKONE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 505. 2MADHUSOODHANAN ASSAN SANGEETHA NIVAS, H.NO.297/73, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM,PIN - 691 301. 3THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KOLLAM DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM,PIN - 691 001. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 2920 OF 2014 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** The appellant was the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.368/2005 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Punalur. The said claim petition was submitted by her seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 13.11.2004. 2. The accident occurred when the petitioner was hit by an Ambassador car bearing Registration No.KRQ 9016 driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The 2[nd] respondent was the owner of the said vehicle and it was insured with the 3[rd] respondent. According to the appellant, she was aged 42 years and was a housewife. The monthly income shown was Rs.3000/-. Consequent to the accident, she sustained serious injuries and had undergone inpatient treatment for a period of 52 days. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances. 3. The 3[rd] respondent/Insurance Company alone contested the matter by filing a written statement wherein ``` MACA NO. 2920 OF 2014 ``` ``` 3 ``` they admitted the coverage of the policy for the car. However, they disputed the liability on various grounds. The quantum of compensation was also disputed by them. The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A16 from the side of the appellant and no evidence was adduced from the side of respondents. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 1[st] respondent in driving the car and being the insurer, the 3[rd] respondent was held liable to pay compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.3,01,100/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited by the 3[rd] respondent Insurance company with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit with a cost of the Rs.1,000/-. This appeal is submitted by the appellant seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. Heard Sri.Anchal C. Vijayan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Jacob P. Mathew, the ``` MACA NO. 2920 OF 2014 ``` ``` 4 ``` learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contends that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are extremely on the lower side. It was pointed out that, the appellant sustained serious head injuries consequent to which, she was compelled to undergo inpatient treatment for a period of 52 days, in KIMS Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, as evidenced by Ext.A10. It is also contended that, even after discharge, she continued the treatment and therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation for loss of earnings was on the extreme lower side. 6. The Tribunal, while considering the said question, took note of the fact that the appellant was a housewife and there is nothing on record to indicate the loss of earnings, which appears to be an erroneous finding. Based on such finding only small amount of Rs 7,500/- was awarded by the Tribunal for loss of earning, as a notional amount. However, ``` MACA NO. 2920 OF 2014 ``` ``` 5 ``` merely because the victim was a housewife, the compensation for loss of earnings cannot be declined. It is to be noted that the services rendered by a housewife cannot be measured in terms of money. When the housewife is unable to attend to her household duties owing to disablement, another person has to be engaged for the said purpose, which would certainly incur additional expenses. Moreover, the efforts of a housewife is a crucial factor contributing to the welfare of the earning members of the family, and such efforts help such earning members to devote their time to their employment which generates income. Therefore, I am of the view that compensation has to be granted for loss of income, even in respect of housewife, taking note of the aforesaid aspect. In this case, evidently, the appellant undergone inpatient treatment for a period of 52 days and even thereafter the treatment continued. Therefore, considering the nature of the injuries and the consequences of the said injuries, she would have been prevented from pursuing her ``` MACA NO. 2920 OF 2014 ``` ``` 6 ``` duties for at least a period of five months. Therefore, the compensation can be granted for the said period. 7. As regards the monthly income, it is to be noted that the Tribunal took only Rs.2,500/- which appears to be very low. Of course, it is true that the monthly income claimed was Rs.3,000/-. But, it is a fact that, in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd** [(2011) 13 SCC 236] the Honourable Supreme Court fixed the monthly income of an ordinary worker, even in the absence of any evidence, as Rs.4,500/- in respect of an accident occurred in the year 2004. Even though the services rendered by the housewife cannot be measured in terms of money, for the purpose of fixing the compensation, such an exercise needs to be condcuted. Therefore, under no circumstances, such monthly income can be fixed at a lesser figure than determined as per the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in **Ramachandrappa** ’s case. Therefore, a monthly income of Rs.4,500/- can be reasonably fixed in this ``` MACA NO. 2920 OF 2014 ``` ``` 7 ``` case. Thus, the compensation under the head of loss of income, would come to Rs.22,500/- (4,500 x 5) and after deducting Rs.7,500/- already awarded by the Tribunal, the additional compensation would come to Rs.15,000/-. 8. When moving on to the other heads, it is seen that, an amount of Rs.12,000/- alone is granted towards pain suffering, which appears to be lower side. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the prolonged treatment, I deem it appropriate to grant a further sum of Rs.13,000/under the said head. Similarly, towards loss of amenities, considering the nature of injuries a further sum of Rs.8,000/is awarded. Thus, the total additional compensation would come to Rs.36,000/- (Rupees thirty six thousand only). In the light of the aforesaid observations and finding, this appeal is allowed. The award dated 27.06.2014 in O.P.(M.V.) No.368/2005 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Punalur is modified by awarding a further sum of Rs.36,000/- (Rupees thirty six thousand only) which shall be ``` MACA NO. 2920 OF 2014 ``` ``` 8 ``` deposited by the 3[rd] respondent Insurance Company along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till realisation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ``` Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE ``` scs