Riyas s/o Abdulla v. Ayisha w/o Hamza Eraman; Abbas s/o Moosa Muhammed; The New India Assurance Company Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2016/10TH SRAVANA, 1938 MACA.No. 2237 of 2012 () ------------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 732/2007 of PRINCIPAL M.A.C.T., KOZHIKODE DATED 16-04-2010 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: ----------------------- RIYAS S/O. ABDULLA, AGED 25 YEARS, PALLIPOTTA HOUSE, P.O. THALAYAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR SMT.V.B.SANTHINI RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. AYISHA W/O. HAMZA ERAMAN, KANHOLI HOUSE, PERUVALLUR, THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676505 2. ABBAS - S/O. MOOSA MUHAMMED, OODAKUNDAMBAL HOUSE, KARTHALOD AMSOM, THOLAYAD DESOM, P.O. THALAYAD, KOZHIKODE - 673 574. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED TIRPURI BUILDING, EAST NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE - 673 011. R3 BY ADV. SRI.ZIYAD RAHMAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR** ## **& K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.** ## **========================== M.A.C.A. No.2237 OF 2012 ==========================** Dated this the 1[st] day of August, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** ## _Jyothindranath, J._ This appeal is preferred by the claimant in O.P.(MV).No.732 of 2007 on the files of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The challenge is against the quantum of compensation awarded. 2.When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that a motor vehicle accident occurred on 25.10.2006 at about 7.45 a.m while the appellant was travelling in a jeep bearing Reg.No.KL 10 G 1937. He sustained very severe injuries and was treated at Medical College Hospital, **M.A.C.A.2237/2012** 2 Kozhikode. He moved a claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of `4,35,669/-. The submission of the learned counsel is that the appellant sustained Hemiplegia and the medical board assessed his disability as 75%. At the time of the accident, he was aged only 20 years. Even though the medical board assessed the disability as 75%, the Tribunal considered only 70%, for assessment purpose. It is also the submission that he was a hardworking coolie who was earning `4,500/- per month. But, the Tribunal considered only `2,500/-, for assessment purpose. The compensation awarded on various other heads are also on lower side and an interference by this Court to re-assess just compensation is necessary. 3.The learned counsel for the insurance company submitted before us that the Tribunal awarded just compensation on the basis of his claim. It is the submission that the total compensation claimed was `4,94,000/- and the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of **M.A.C.A.2237/2012** 3 `4,35,669/-. It is also the submission that the Tribunal got an opportunity to see the petitioner. As such, an interference by this Court is not warranted. 4.We perused the award. It can be seen that, in paragraph 9 of the award, the Tribunal described the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident, as follows:- “Large Hamerrhgic contusion (L) Ganglid capsuler region, mass effect and midline shift, fracture (Rt) parietal bone and adjacent extra axial Hematoma. Subdural Hammerrhge and other injuries.” 5.It can be further seen that as per the award, the petitioner was in the hospital for 88 days. Ext.C1 is the certificate issued by a medical board. We perused the photocopy of the disability certificate available. It revealed that the disability assessed by the board is 75%. The age of the victim is only 20 years. The accident occurred in the year 2006. It can be seen that here is a case where an interference by **M.A.C.A.2237/2012** 4 this Court to assess just compensation is necessary. As the claimant was only aged 20 years and was a coolie, keeping in mind that in an accident occurred in 2004, the Apex court in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.** [ **(2011) 13 SCC 236]** considered a monthly income of `4,500/-, it will only be just and proper to consider a monthly income of `4,500/- also for the appellant herein. The percentage of disability assessed by the medical board can be accepted for assessment purpose, as the case of the appellant is that he is a manual labourer. Thus, on the head of loss due to disability, the amount available towards compensation will be `7,29,000/- (4500x12x18x75/100). On this head, the Tribunal already granted an amount of `3,78,000/-. Thus, the appellant will be entitled for a sum of `3,51,000/- over and above the amount already awarded. No amount is seen awarded towards loss of amenities as well as loss of marriage prospects. Here is a case where the disability is about 75%. The claimant, at the time of the accident, was aged only 20 years. The **M.A.C.A.2237/2012** 5 disability certificate further shows that there is Right Hemiplegia with rigidity. Thus, towards the head, loss of amenities, the appellant will be entitled for an additional sum of `50,000/-. Considering the age of the victim and all other attending circumstances, another sum of `50,000/- is awarded towards loss of marriage prospects. In this case, the appellant was in the hospital for 88 days. On the head of bystanders expenses, only a sum of `8,800/- is seen awarded. Since it is a case of Hemiplegia and as the disability is assessed as 75%, a sum of `25,000/- is awarded towards bystanders expenses over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. As the monthly income of the appellant is considered as `4,500/-, compensation for loss of earning also has to be re-fixed. Considering four months' loss of income, an additional sum of `4,000/- is awarded on that head. Thus, the appellant will be entitled for an additional compensation of `4,80,000/-. The additional compensation will bear 8% interest from the date of the petition till realisation, subject to the condition that for a period of 808 days, the appellant will not be entitled for any **M.A.C.A.2237/2012** 6 interest (as per order dated 6.11.2012 in C.M Application No.2626 of 2012). The insurance company shall pay the amount within four months of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also directed that the Tribunal shall realise the court fee for the award amount granted over and above the original claim for which court fee paid. On deposit, the balance amount alone need be released to the appellant. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **Sd/K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH (JUDGE)** **spc/** **M.A.C.A.2237/2012** 7 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **M.A.C.A.2237/2012** 8 **JUDGMENT September, 2010**