Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepna and others

_**MACA. No.1960/2019**_ _**1**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:17250** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 30TH MAGHA, 1946 MACA NO. 1960 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 16.04.2013 IN OPMV NO.671 OF 2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , THALASSERY** ## **APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT:** **ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI, NOW REPRESENTED BY THEIR ZONAL HEAD, SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNASALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002.** **BY ADVS. MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW- SC** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:** **1 DEEPNA, NOW AGED 21, D/O.PRADEEP KUMAR, DEEPNA VIHAR HOUSE, ERANHOLI P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670 107.** **2 A.ABDUL BASHEER, S/O.MIDU, THACHERIYAKATH, VALAPATTANAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 010.** **3 MUHAMMED SHABEER O., S/O.ABOOBACKER K.P., OLIYAN HOUSE, VALAPATTANAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 010.** _**2**_ ## _**MACA. No.1960/2019**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:17250** **4 IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 2ND FLOOR, AAL-RAHABA ARCODE, PUSHPA JUNCTION, KALLAI ROAD, CALICUT, PIN - 673 003.** **BY ADVS. ARUN BOSE.D - R1 T.P.SAJID – R2 & R3 K.VISWAN(K/416/1993) P.S.POOJA(K/1664/2023) K.P.MOHAMED SHAFI(M-754) SHIFA LATHEEF(K/1347/2016) SREESHMA B. CHANDRAN(K/000678/2016) MUHAMMED HAROON A.N.(K/001039/2022) HASHARURAHIMAN U.(K/1137/2021) MOHEMED FAVAS(K/001375/2021)** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** _**MACA. No.1960/2019**_ _**3**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:17250** ## J U D G M E N T Dated this the 19[th] day of February, 2025 The Respondent No.5 in O.P.(M.V.) No671/2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thalassery is the appellant herein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal). 2. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 2.9.2012. According to the petitioner, on 2.9.2012, while she was travelling in a Nano car, bearing registration No.KL-58E-6840, driven by the supplemental 4[th] respondent, an Innova car bearing registration No.KL13Y-3399 driven by the 2[nd] respondent, which came from the opposite direction hit against the Nano car and as a result of which, the petitioner sustained serious injuries. It is alleged that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2[nd] and 4[th] respondents. 3. The 1[st] respondent is the owner, the 2[nd] respondent is the driver _**MACA. No.1960/2019**_ _**4**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:17250** and 3[rd] respondent is the insurer of the Innova car. 4[th] respondent is the owner cum driver and 5[th] respondent is the insurer of the Nano car. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.4,28,000/- (limited to Rs.4,00,000/-). 4. The 3[rd] respondent/ insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident, but disputing the policy as well as negligence on the part of the driver of the Innova car. The 5[th] respondent/ insurer filed a written statement, admitting the accident, as well as valid policy, but disputing negligence on the part of the driver of the Nano car. 5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PWs 1 to 3 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A17, X1, X2, B1 and B2. 6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the supplementary 4[th] respondent, awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,18,500/- and directed the 5[th] respondent namely, the insurer of the Nano car to pay the same. 7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Respondent No.5 preferred this appeal. _**MACA. No.1960/2019**_ _**5**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:17250** 8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following: _Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?_ 9. Heard Sri.P. Jacob Mathew, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5[th] respondent/appellant, Sri. Arun Bose for the 1[st] respondent/petitioner and Sri. T.P. Sajid for respondents 2 and 3 herein. 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid insurance policy of the Nano car are admitted. 11. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: _“(a_ ) _blunt injury on abdomen_ - _(b) spenic laceration_ - _(c) Haemoprkucum”_ 12. The petitioner was treated as inpatient for a total period of 16 days. As per Exhibit X1 disability certificate issued by the medical board, the petitioner suffered 10% permanent physical disability. However, after observing her, the Tribunal, has fixed her functional disability at 15%. _**MACA. No.1960/2019**_ _**6**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:17250** 13. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another [(2014) 14 SCC 396],** the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under the head 'compensation for permanent disability and loss of earning power'. A further sum of Rs.60,000/- on the head amenities and marriage prospects, Rs.50,000/on the head 'pain and suffering' was also awarded, in addition to compensation on the heads transport to hospital, damage to clothing, bystander expenses and extra nourishment. 14. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, because of the injuries, the petitioner had to undergo a major surgery extending from below the chest up to lower abdomen and as such the injuries have adversely affected her marriage prospects. He would also argue that because of the injuries the alignment of her eye was also changed and there is also problem of double vision. Therefore, he argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the head 'loss of amenities and marriage prospects' is to be enhanced. 15. When the petitioner was examined as PW1, she deposed that _**MACA. No.1960/2019**_ _**7**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:17250** because of the injuries, she had to undergo a major surgery extending from below the chest, up to the lower abdomen and there is a scar on account of the above surgery, which is still existing. She also deposed that because of the impact of the accident there is double vision also. Further, due to the above accident, she lost her studies for a period of five months. I do not find any grounds to disbelieve the above testimony of PW1. 16. As argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, when compensation is awarded on the basis of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Master Mallikarjun** (supra), there is no scope for awarding separate compensation on the heads 'pain and suffering' and 'loss of amenities'. Therefore, Rs.50,000/- awarded on the head 'pain and suffering' and Rs.60,000/- awarded on the head 'loss of amenities' is to be deducted. 17. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 16 years, studying in Plus One. Being a girl of 16 years, the injuries sustained in the accident, the consequent surgery and the resulting scar and effect on her vision definitely might have adversely affected her beauty and _**MACA. No.1960/2019**_ _**8**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:17250** marriage prospects and as such I hold that, in the place of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the heads ‘pain and sufferings’ and 'loss of amenities and marriage prospects', a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- can be awarded towards “disfiguration and loss of marriage prospects”. 18. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is regarding the negligence. As per Exhibit B2, the police filed final report against the 4[th] respondent, the driver of the Nano car. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there was contributory negligence from the side of the Innova car also. However, in this case, there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the above contention. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the 4[th] respondent. 19. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 20. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get a total _**MACA. No.1960/2019**_ _**9**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:17250** compensation of Rs.6,33,500/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: |**Sl.**<br>**No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount awarded by**<br>**Tribunal(in Rs.)**|**Amount Awarded**<br>**in Appeal(in Rs.)**| |---|---|---|---| |1|Transport to hospital|3,000/-|3,000/-| |2|Damage to clothing|1,000/-|1,000/-| |3|Bystander's expenses|8,000/-|8,000/-| |4|Extra nourishment|5,000/-|5,000/-| |5|Medical expenses|91,500/-|91,500/-| |6|Pain and suffering|50,000/-|Disfuration and loss<br>ofmarriage<br>prospects-2,00,000| |7|Loss of amenities and marriage<br>prospects|60,000/-|| |8|Loss of disability|300000|300000| |9|Discomfort, inconvenience and<br>loss of earnings to the parents<br>during<br>the<br>period<br>of<br>hospitalization|Nil/|25,000/-| ||**Total**|**5,18,500/-**|**6,33,500/-**| ||Amount enhanced- Rs.1,15,000/-||| 21. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.5 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.6,33,500/- (Rupees six lakh thirty three thousand five hundred only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, within a period of two months from today. _**MACA. No.1960/2019**_ _**10**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:17250** 22. On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the petitioner, excluding court fee payable, if any, without delay, as per rules. Sd/- C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE sou.