Sibi Francis S/o Francis v. Commissioner of Land Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram; C. V. Scaria; The Kerala State Insurance Department

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. THURSDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 12TH MAGHA, 1945** **MACA NO. 2902 OF 2015** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 282/2008 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** SIBI FRANCIS S/O.FRANCIS, REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND/WIFE, GIGI SIBI, W/O.SIBI, PULICKAL HOUSE, MARYLAND KARA, KADANAD VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 697 001. 2 C.V.SCARIA S/O.VARGHESE, [DVR PC.2943 AR CAMP, IDUKKI], CHENNITHIL HOUSE, KAKKATTUKADA BHAGAM, KANCHIYAR KARA, AYYAPPANCOIL VILLAGE - 685 507. 3 THE KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER, IDUKKI, THODUPUZHA - 685 584. BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV T JAYAN -PP THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 M.A.C.A No.2902 of 2015 ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant was the petitioner in O.P.(M.V) No. 282/2008 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha. The said claim petition was submitted by him seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident that occurred on 02.06.2007. 2. According to him, the accident occurred when the motorcycle ridden by him, collided with a jeep bearing registration No.KL01 AD/8647. The 2nd respondent was the driver of the jeep and the said vehicle belonged to the Government of Kerala, which was being used by the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram. The 3rd respondent was the insurer of the said vehicle. According to him, he was an agriculturist with a monthly income of Rs.10,000/- and was 34 years old at the time of the accident. Consequent to the injuries, he sustained permanent disablement and the claim petition was submitted in such circumstances. 3. The 1st respondent filed a written statement disputing the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent. It was also 3 ## M.A.C.A No.2902 of 2015 contended that the said vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent filed a written statement admitting the insurance coverage for the said vehicle. However, they disputed the negligence as well as the quantum of compensation. 4. The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A17 from the side of the appellant and the copy of the policy was marked as Ext.B1. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent in driving the jeep and being the insurer, the 3rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.23,08,300/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited by the 3rd respondent with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 5. Heard, Sri. Mathew John, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.T.Jayan, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 3. 4 M.A.C.A No.2902 of 2015 6. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation is adequate or not. The specific contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant is that, despite the fact that the appellant suffered a permanent disability of 68%, and he was completely bedridden consequent to the injuries sustained, the Tribunal awarded a meagre compensation, as it failed to consider the functional disability suffered by the appellant. Besides the same, the future prospects of the appellant was also not taken into account when assessing the compensation. 7. Even though the learned Government Pleader opposes the said contention, after perusing the materials, I find force in the contention put forward by the appellant in this regard. Ext.A9 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, wherein the disability was certified as 68%. The reasons for assessing the said disability are clearly mentioned in the said certificate, which reads as follows: - “ 1) impulsive behaviour, forgetfulness – 30% - 2) severe limitation impending useful action in almost all Social & interpersonal daily functions. -30% 5 M.A.C.A No.2902 of 2015 - 3) Cannot stand without the help of the others/mechanical support- 40%” 8. It is also discernible from the records that, consequent to the injuries and disability, the appellant is bedridden, and he cannot even stand without the support of a third person. From the observations made in the award, it is evident that the Tribunal was also convinced of the fact that, he is incapable of carrying out any employment. He claimed to be an Agriculturist. Considering the nature of the injuries, it is evident that it may not be possible for him to carry out any avocation and therefore, this is a fit case in which the functional disability ought to have been taken by the Tribunal, but instead, the Tribunal proceeded to assess the compensation by merely taking into account the physical disability as certified in the medical certificate. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account the fact that he was completely bedridden, I deem it appropriate to fix the functional disability as 90%. 6 M.A.C.A No.2902 of 2015 9. The Tribunal has accepted the monthly income as Rs.6,000/- which appears to be reasonable for an accident that occurred in the year 2007, particularly because no other evidence is available indicating his income. 10. The next aspect relates to the addition to be made towards future prospects. The pathetic condition of the appellant is evident from the record, and this Court is convinced of the fact that he is unfit to carry out any employment. Therefore, future prospects ought to have been considered by the Tribunal. In the light of **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)]** , the addition to be made in this regard should be 40% as the deceased was found to be 38 years as per the medical records. Thus, when reassessing the compensation for disability with the above-revised criteria, the amount would come to Rs.13,60,800/- [(6,000 + 40%) x 12 x 15 x 90/100]. The amount already awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.7,34,400/- . Thus, the additional amount would come to Rs.6,26,400/-. 11. The next head which requires consideration is 7 ## M.A.C.A No.2902 of 2015 compensation for future treatment. The necessity of continued medical treatment is evident from the records produced by him. It is discernible therefrom that even to maintain the present condition, he has to take medicines, and this will incur expenses for life long. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.1,00,000/which appears to be on the lower side in such circumstances. Therefore, I am of the view that additional amount needs to be granted and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- under this head. Thus, the total additional compensation is determined to be Rs.8,26,400/-. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha in O.P.(M.V) No. 282/2008 is hereby modified by granting an additional compensation of Rs.8,26,400/- (Rupees eight lakh twenty-six thousand four hundred only) which shall be deposited by the 3rd respondent with interest at the rate 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. It is further ordered that, the 8 M.A.C.A No.2902 of 2015 claimant shall furnish the details of PAN card, Aadhar Card and Bank details to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case he fails 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** rpk