Shimna v. P. Muhammed Sabith and Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. FRIDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 15TH POUSHA, 1945 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 372 OF 2011`** ``` OPMV 755/2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VATAKARA ``` ## **`APPELLANT/PETITIONER:`** ``` SHIMNA, AGED 29 YEARS, W/O.RAMESH BABU, ISWARAN CHIRAKKUNI HOUSE,PANTHALAYAM AMSOM DESOM,, QUILANDY.P.O,QUILANDY TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.RAJAN SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 P. MUHAMMED SABITH S/O.ANDRU HAJI,PONNAMBATH HOUSE,MAYYANNOOR.P.O,, VADAKARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,PIN-673001.` - `2 ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO.LTD AMRITHA TOWERS,2ND FLOOR,K.P.C.C.JUNCTION,, M.G.ROAD,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682011.` ``` BY ADV SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR. ``` ## **`THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:`** M.A.C.A. No.372/2011 : 2 : ## JUDGMENT The appellant was the petitioner in OP(MV) No.755/2007 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vatakara. 2. The said claim petition was submitted by her seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to her in a motor accident that occurred on 29.10.2006. The accident occurred, when the car in which the appellant was travelling was hit by a Mahindra Scorpio car bearing registration No.KL-18/D-999 owned and driven by the 1[st] respondent and was insured with the 2[nd] respondent. The appellant was a housewife and she sustained permanent disablement due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances seeking compensation. 3. The 2[nd] respondent filed a written statement admitting the coverage of policy of Mahindra Scorpio car but disputed the liability on various grounds. The quantum of compensation as well as negligence attributed to the 1[st] respondent was also disputed by them. The said claim petition was tried along with M.A.C.A. No.372/2011 : 3 : four other claim petitions which arose from the very same accident. 4. The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A25 and Ext.C1. From the side of the respondents Ext.B1 was marked. 5. 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 Scorpio car and being the insurer of the said vehicle, the 2[nd] respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.53,330/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited by the 2[nd] respondent with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation with a cost of Rs.750/-. This appeal is submitted by the appellant in such circumstances seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. Heard Sri. K.V. Rajan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Mathews Jacob, the learned senior counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent insurance company. 7. During the pendency of this appeal as per order dated 25.09.2023 in I.A. No.1/2022 the appellant was referred for M.A.C.A. No.372/2011 : 4 : assessment to the Medical Board to be constituted by the Superintendent, Government Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. On the basis of the same, an assessment was made by the Medical Board so constituted and the disability certificate was forwarded by the Medical Board to this Court. As per the said certificate, the disability of the appellant is certified as 9%. The said document is accepted into the file and marked as Ext.A26. 8. The only dispute in this case relates to the quantum of compensation. The main grievance of the appellant is that, no amount was awarded by the tribunal for disability. Now the extent of disability suffered by the appellant has been assessed by a competent Medical Board and it was certified as 9%. Therefore, the same can be accepted and the compensation can be assessed for disability. 9. The appellant was a housewife. As far as a housewife is concerned, even though there may not be any actual earning in terms of money, the services of a housewife for a family which consists of earning members is something which is very crucial. The services rendered by such a housewife enables the earning M.A.C.A. No.372/2011 : 5 : members of the family to continue in the respective employments and therefore, while assessing the compensation for disability, a reasonable monthly income has to be fixed on the basis of the standards of life of the claimants and her parents. It is to be noted in this regard that, when applying the method of computation of monthly income evolved from the principles laid down by the Hon’ble 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 Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735], the monthly income of an ordinary worker even in the absence of any evidence has to be fixed as Rs.4,500/- in respect of an accident occurred in the year 2004. The usual method that is adopted to determine the monthly income for the subsequent years is to add Rs.500/- each per year. When such a method of computation is adopted, the monthly income has to be fixed as Rs.5,500/- in respect of an accident occurred in the year 2006. In such circumstances, I am of the view that, even though, the services of the housewife cannot be measured in terms of money, for the limited purpose of assessing the compensation for disability, an assessment with M.A.C.A. No.372/2011 : 6 : reference to monetary terms has to be made and for determining the same, the monthly income can be reasonably fixed as Rs.5,500/-. 10. Considering the age of the appellant, the multiplier applicable is 17. Thus, while assessing the compensation for permanent disability, the amount would come to Rs.1,00,980/(5500x12x17x9/100) 10. Consequent to the injuries sustained, she must have been prevented from pursuing his day to day duties as a housewife at least for a period of four months. It is to be noted in this regard that, she sustained very serious injuries in the accident and the period of hospitalisation extended to a total period of 38 days in two spells. Therefore, the nature of injuries suggest that she might have continued the treatment even after her discharge from the hospital. In such circumstances, four months is a reasonable period for determining the compensation for loss of earnings, as in all probabilities she might have engaged some other persons for attending her regular duties. In such circumstances, the appellant is awarded an amount of Rs.22,000/- for loss of earnings. M.A.C.A. No.372/2011 : 7 : 11. The next head which requires attention is the pain and sufferings. The amount awarded by the tribunal under this head is Rs.22,000/-. As observed above, the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for a period of 38 days and the injuries sustained by her includes fracture shaft of femur and fracture proximal humerous. Considering the nature of injuries and the period of hospitalisation as well as the treatment availed by her even after her discharge, I deem it appropriate to grant a further sum of Rs.13,000/- under the head of pain and sufferings. Similarly the amount awarded by the tribunal towards loss of amenities was Rs.5,000/- only, which also appears to be on the lower side. It has come out in evidence that, consequent to the accident she sustained serious injuries and it resulted in permanent disablement of 9% as well. In such circumstances, some more amount ought to have been granted under the head of loss of amenities. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant a further sum of Rs.20,000/- under this head. Thus the additional compensation receivable by the appellant is determined as Rs.1,55,980/- (1,00,980+13000+ 20000+22000). M.A.C.A. No.372/2011 : 8 : In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings this appeal is allowed. The award dated 24.03.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vatakara in OP(MV) No.755/2007 is hereby modified by granting an additional compensation of Rs.1,55,980/- (Rupees one lakh fifty five thousand nine hundred and eighty only) and the 2[nd] respondent is directed to deposit the said amount along with interest at the rate as ordered by the tribunal with proportionate costs within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE ncd/