Reghu Puthenpurayil Veedu v. Anilkumar Varottil Veedu, Rani Jacob and The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/15TH BHADRA, 1938 MACA.No. 2626 of 2016 () ------------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 344/2007 of ADDL.MACT, MAVELIKKARA DATED 04-01-2016 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER.: ------------------------ REGHU PUTHENPURAYIL VEEDU, THAMALLACKAL VADAKKUM MURI, KUMARAPURAM. BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------- 1. ANILKUMAR VAROTTIL VEEDU, VETTUVENI MURI, PALLIPAD- 690 512. 2. RANI JACOB, VALLAKALIL PUTHENPURACKAL, VEEYAPURAM- 690 514. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KAYAMKULAM- 690 502. R3 BY ADV.SMT.K.S.SANTHI THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR & K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.** **========================== M.A.C.A. No.2626 OF 2016 ==========================** Dated this the 6[th] day of September, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** ## _Jyothindranath, J._ This appeal is preferred by the claimant in O.P.(MV).No.344 of 2007 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikara. The challenge is against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2.When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted before us that, here is a case where an autorickshaw driver sustained very severe injuries. The doctor assessed the disability as 18%. The doctor was examined before the Tribunal, as PW2. But the Tribunal considered only a **M.A.C.A.2626/2016** 2 disability of 10% for assessment purpose. Even though the appellant/claimant was an autorickshaw driver, only a notional income of `4,500/- was considered by the Tribunal. It is also the submission that the compensation awarded on all other heads is also on a lower side. 3.After hearing Sri. George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil, the learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.K.S.Santhi, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, it is decided to dispose of the appeal at the admission stage itself. 4.After hearing the learned counsel and also after perusing the award, we feel that some interference is warranted. 5.The appellant/claimant was aged 45 years at the time of the accident. Ext.A10 is the driving licence of the appellant which revealed that he is authorised to drive an autorickshaw which is **M.A.C.A.2626/2016** 3 included in the special category of vehicles. When he is authorised to drive an autorickshaw, we are not hesitant to believe the claim of the petitioner that he was earning his livelihood by driving autorickshaw. The appellant also brought to our notice a decision of the Apex Court in **Minu Rout and another v. Satya Pradumma Mohapatra** and others reported in **2013 KHC 4701.** It is a case of death where the the deceased was a driver by profession. In that case, the accident occurred in the year 2004. The Apex Court considered the income of the deceased as `6,000/-, per month. Surely, it is a case of Truck driver. In this case, the claimant is an autorickshaw driver. But at the very same time, it can be seen that the Tribunal considered an income as ` 4,500/- per month as well as considered 30% towards future prospects. Here, the disability is only 10%. But, considering the totality of the case and the date of the accident and also considering the age of the appellant/claimant, we feel that it will be only just and proper to consider `6,500/- as monthly income, for assessment purpose. The Tribunal considered four months period where there **M.A.C.A.2626/2016** 4 will be 100% loss of earning. Taking the very same period, the appellant will be entitled for an additional sum of `8,000/- towards loss of earning (6500x 4-18000). Towards disability, by reckoning the multiplier 14 as well as the multiplicand as `6,500/-, the appellant will be entitled for an additional compensation of `10,920/-. The said amount is awarded. Only a sum of `500/- is seen awarded towards damage to clothing. An additional sum of `500/- is awarded on this head. Towards extra nourishment, only a sum of `1,000/- is seen awarded. It is a case where the appellant was in the hospital for 58 days. Considering `100/- as daily expenses for extra nourishment, he will be entitled for an additional compensation of `4,800/- on this head and the said amount is awarded. Towards loss of amenities, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of `8,500/-. In this case, the main submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that due to the disability, there will be loss of amenities while he is working even though the loss due to disability in earning power is only 10%. Considering the submissions and all aspects, an additional sum of **M.A.C.A.2626/2016** 5 `11,500/- is awarded on this head. Thus, the appellant will be entitled for an additional compensation of `35,720/-, which is rounded off to `35,750/-. The said compensation will bear 8% interest from the date of the petition till realisation. The insurance company shall pay the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There will be no order as to costs. It is made clear that the Tribunal shall realise the court fee payable on the compensation awarded over and above the claim, from the appellant. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **Sd/-** **K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH (JUDGE)** **spc/** **M.A.C.A.2626/2016** 6 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **M.A.C.A.2626/2016** 7 **JUDGMENT September, 2010** **M.A.C.A.2626/2016** 8