Siju M.C. v New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **MACA.No.808 OF 2011** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 2466/2005 DATED 24-01-2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PERUMBAVOOR** ## **APPELLANT:** **SIJU M.C. S/O CHATTAPPAN MUNDAKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUDAKUZHA P.O.,, VENGOOR W. VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR,, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SMT.ANUPAMA JOHNY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR G.** **RESPONDENT:** **NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD MADAPARAMBU CHAMBERS, M.C.ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA.** ## **SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR RESPONDENT** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA.No.808 OF 2011 2 ``` P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 808 of 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9[th] day of March 2021 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** ``` The appellant is the injured/claimant in O.P.(M.V). No.2466/2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. It was a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The above claim petition was disposed by the Tribunal along with O.P(M.V). Nos. 111/2006, 182/2006 and 123/2006. (Hereinafter the parties are mentioned in accordance to their rank before the Tribunal) ``` ``` 2. The short facts are like this:- On 22.09.2005, at about 7.45 p.m., while the appellant was travelling in a bus bearing Registration No. KL-17/B-801 driven by the petitioner O.P(M.V). Nos. 182/2006, through the ``` MACA.No.808 OF 2011 3 ``` Perumbavoor-Iringole road from west to east and when reached at the place of occurrence, a mini lorry with Registration No.KL-5/F-5034 driven by the 1[st] respondent came in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the bus and as a result of the same, the petitioners and others sustained serious injury. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the mini lorry by the 1[st] respondent. ``` ``` 3. To substantiate the case, Exhibit A1 to A42 were marked and PW1 to PW3 were examined on the side of the petitioners. Exhibit B1 is the copy of the policy. After going through the evidences and documents, the Tribunal found that the petitioner in the above claim petition is entitled an amount of Rs. 4,34,378/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty Four Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy Eight Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition, till realization. Aggrieved by the quantum ``` MACA.No.808 OF 2011 4 ``` of compensation, this appeal is filed. ``` `4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the` `learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company` ``` 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.3,500/- and that is too low. The learned counsel submitted that the accident happened in the year 2005 and even a coolie will get more than Rs.4,500/- per month during that period. ``` `6. I find some force in the arguments of the learned` ``` counsel. InRamachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram [2011(13) SCC 236], the Apex Court fixed the monthly income of a coolie as Rs.4,500/- in the year 2004. The petitioner was a Supervisor in Cochin Refineries on contract basis at the time of accident. The claim of the appellant is that he is getting Rs.4,500/- per month. There is nothing wrong in accepting the same in the light of the ``` MACA.No.808 OF 2011 5 ``` dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa's Case (supra). He sustained eight fractures and there is even loss of vision of right eye. Considering the serious nature of the injuries, I think that the Tribunal ought have assessed loss of earning for a period of six months instead of four months. Therefore, the loss of earning can be reassessed in the following manner. ``` ``` 4500X6=27,000/-. ``` ``` From the above amount, Rs.14,000/-, which is the amount already awarded by the Tribunal is to be deducted. Therefore, the appellant is entitled Rs.13,000/- (Thirteen Thousand Only) more towards loss of earnings. ``` `7. Towards transport to hospital, an amount of Rs.500/-` `is allowed by the Tribunal. The appellant is entitled another amount of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) towards transport to hospital.` `8. For extra nourishment, another amount of Rs.500/-` MACA.No.808 OF 2011 6 ``` (Rupees Five Hundred Only) can be allowed. ``` ``` 9. Towards attendance charges, an amount of Rs.4,200/- is allowed, taking Rs.100 per day for 42 days. I think Rs.150 per day can be taken. Taking Rs.150 per day for 42 days, the appellant is entitled another amount of Rs.2,100/- (Rupees Two Thousand and One Hundred Only) towards attendance charges. ``` ``` 10. An amount of Rs.16,000/- is awarded by the Tribunal for loss of amenities. After hearing both sides, I find that, Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand Only) more can be granted for loss of amenities. ``` ``` 11. As far as disability is concerned, taking the monthly income as Rs. 4,500/-, the appellant is entitled compensation in the following manner:- ``` ``` 4500x12x17x40/100=3,67,200/- ``` ``` From the above amount, Rs.2,85,600/-, which is the amount already granted by the Tribunal is to be deducted. ``` MACA.No.808 OF 2011 7 ``` Therefore, the appellant is entitled an enhanced amount of Rs.81,600/- (Rupees Eighty One Thousand Six Hundred Only) more towards permanent disability. ``` ``` 12. Therefore, the enhanced compensation entitled by the appellant can be summarised like this:- ``` ``` HeadAmount Compensation for disabilityRs.81,600/- Loss of earningsRs.13,000/- Loss of amenitiesRs.4,000/- Transport to hospitalRs.500/- Attendance ChargesRs.2,100/- Extra NourishmentRs.500/- ``` ``` Total Rs.1,01,700/- ``` ``` Therefore, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified. The appellant is entitled an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,01,700/- (Rupees One Lakh One Thousand and Seven Hundred Only) with interest at the ``` MACA.No.808 OF 2011 8 ``` rate of 8% p.a., from the date of application till realisation. Respondent is liable to pay enhanced amount with interest. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE ``` ``` avs ```