Sekhar v. P. Pungaraj and Others

MACA.No.2042/13 1 # _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_ ## _PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A._ _WEDNESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945_ ## _MACA NO. 2042 OF 2013_ _AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2012 IN OPMV NO.99 OF 2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL VADAKARA_ _APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN O.P.(MV):_ _SEKHAR, S/O.MUTHU, AGED 30 YEARS, MAVVERY KUNNUMMAL COLONY, MAHALAKSHMI NIVAS, PACHIPOYIL P.O, KOOTHUPARAMBA VIA, KANNUR DISTRICT._ _BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN_ ## _RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.P.(MV):_ _1 P.PUNGARAJ, S/O.PANDARAM YADAVAR, AGE NOT KNOWN, 5/699, NETHAJI NAGAR, SANKARAPERI THOOTHUKUDI, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU – 637 001._ _2 MURUGAN K. S/O.P.KANTHASAMI KONAR, AGED 35 YEARS, 1/59, SILLANTHAM, OTTAIPIDARAM, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU – 637 001._ _3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., EAST COAST CHAMBERS 1ST FLOOR, G.N.CHETTY ROAD, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 017._ _4 NALINI M., AGE NOT KNOWN, CHALIL HOUSE, PACHAPOIKA, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 101._ MACA.No.2042/13 2 _5 RAJESH M. S/O.BALAN, AGED 33 YEARS, CHALIL HOUSE, PACHAPOIKA, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 101._ _6 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SREENIDHI BUILDING, NARAYANA NAGAR, VATAKARA 673 101._ _BY ADVS. SMT.A.SREEKALA SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN_ _THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:_ MACA.No.2042/13 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant was the petitioner in O.P.(MV). No.99 of 2009 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara. The said claim petition was submitted by him seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident that occurred on 10.10.2007. 2. According to the appellant, the accident occurred while he was travelling in a mini lorry as a loading and unloading worker, the said lorry collided with another vehicle bearing registration No.TN.69/J-7169. The said vehicle was being driven by the 2nd respondent, owned by the 1[st] respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. Respondents 4 to 6 were the owner, driver and insurer respectively of the vehicle in which the appellant was travelling. The appellant was aged 26 years at the time of the accident and was working as a coolie with a monthly income of Rs.6,000/- He sustained serious injuries in the accident and it resulted in physical disability as well. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances. 3. The 3[rd] respondent filed a written statement admitting the coverage of policy for the vehicle bearing MACA.No.2042/13 4 registration No.TN.69/J-7169. However, they disputed the negligence on the part of the 2[nd] respondent. The quantum of compensation was also disputed by them. The 6[th] respondent filed a written statement admitting the coverage of policy for the mini lorry in which the appellant was travelling. However, they also denied the liability on the part of the 5[th] respondent and the quantum of compensation was also disputed. 4. Evidence in this case consists of Ext.A1 to A10 from the side of the appellant and from the side of the respondent Ext.B1 and B2 were marked. After the trial, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2[nd] respondent in driving the lorry and being the insurer of the said vehicle, the 3[rd] respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.82,919/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited by the 3[rd] respondent with interests at the rate of 7.5% from the date of petition till realization. This appeal is submitted in such circumstances seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. Heard Sri.K.M.Jamaludheen, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.A.Sreekala, learned counsel for the 6[th] MACA.No.2042/13 5 respondent and Sri.P.Muraleedharan, learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent. 6. The only issue to be considered relates to the quantum of compensation. It is discernible from the records that the amount awarded by the Tribunal on various heads are on the lower side. The first aspect to be noticed is that, for assessing the compensation for disability, the Tribunal accepted the monthly income as Rs.3,000/-, even though the claim was for Rs.6,000/-. Considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2007, under no circumstances, the said claim of Rs.6,000/- can be treated as unreasonable. It is also to be noted in this regard that, as per the method of computation evolved from the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.[2011 (13) SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.[2014 (2) SCC 735]** , the monthly income of Rs.6,000/- for the year 2007 is reasonable. Therefore, the said amount is accepted for assessing the compensation. 7. The next aspect relates to the percentage of disability. Even though the Ext.A10 disability certificate issued MACA.No.2042/13 6 by the Medical Board was relied on, the Tribunal did not accept the same and the percentage of disability taken by the Tribunal was only 6%. The Tribunal took note of the fact that 14% of disability certified in Ext.A10 was with respect to a particular limb, and it was not whole body disability. On carefully going through the contents of Ext.A10 and other relevant circumstances, I am of the view that there is no scope for interference as far as the percentage of disability is concerned. However, the Tribunal calculated the compensation by taking the multiplier as 18. In the light of **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)]** , the proper multiplier was 17, considering the fact that the appellant was aged 26 years at the time of the accident. Thus, while reassessing the compensation with the above-revised criteria, the amount of compensation for disability would come to Rs.73,440/- [6000x12x17x6/100]. The amount already awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.45,360/- and thus, the additional compensation comes to Rs.28,080/-. 8. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of earnings is Rs.12,000/-. It is discernible from the records that, the appellant sustained a compound fracture of both bones of MACA.No.2042/13 7 the left leg. Considering the fact that the appellant was a head load worker, said injuries must have prevented him from pursuing such employment at least for a period of three months. Therefore, compensation is to be granted for three months at the rate of Rs.6,000/-. Therefore, the additional compensation would come to Rs.6,000/- [6000x3-12,000]. 9. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering was Rs.15,000/-, which appears to be on the lower side. It is evident that he suffered two major fractures. He availed in-patient treatment for 19 days and he also underwent surgical procedures as well. In such circumstances, I deem it appropriate to grant a further sum of Rs.20,000/- under the said head. The amount awarded by the Tribunal for loss of amenities is Rs.1,000/-, which is very low. It is evident that the appellant sustained physical disability at the young age of 26 years. He has to live with that disability for the rest of his life and certainly, it will cause serious prejudice and difficulties in his life as it will affect the quality of his life. Therefore, a reasonable compensation is to be granted under the said head. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to fix it as Rs.25,000/- and hence the additional compensation under this MACA.No.2042/13 8 head would come to Rs.24,000/-. Thus, the total additional compensation would come to Rs.78,080/[28080+24000+20000+6000]. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The award dated 21.12.2012 in O.P.(MV). No.99 of 2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara is hereby modified by granting an additional compensation of Rs.78,080/- [Rupees seventy-eight thousand and eighty only] and the said amount is directed to be deposited by the 3rd respondent with interest as ordered by the Tribunal and proportionate costs within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, it is clarified that, as the delay of 170 days in filing the appeal was condoned by this Court subject to the condition that the appellant shall not be entitled to get interest for the amount, if any granted, pertaining to the said period, the 3rd respondent shall be at liberty to exclude the said period while computing the interest on the additional compensation. It is further ordered that the claimants shall furnish the details of the PAN Card, AADHAR Card and Bank details to enable the Insurance Company to make the deposit as ordered above, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy MACA.No.2042/13 9 of this judgment. In case, they fail to furnish the said details, it shall be open for the Insurance Company to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal. Sd/- **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE** DG/11.3.24