SOSAMMA G. PILLAI @ AMMINI v M. SUDHAKAR, V. SASIKUMAR & UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 4TH MAGHA, 1945 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 8 OF 2011`** ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 09.04.2010 IN OP(MV) 2801/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`APPELLANT/ORIGINAL PETITIONER:`** ``` SOSAMMA.G.PILLAI @ AMMINI W/O. GOVINDA PILLAI, 4/609, USHUS, THRIKKAKARA, COCHIN – 24, ERNAKULAM DIST. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR) ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1M.SUDHAKAR S/O MURUGAIYYAN 3/44, AGARAVELI, THRIUKKUVALAI,, KILVELUR TALUK, NAGAPATTINAM P.O., TAMILNADU - 611 001. 2V. SASIKUMAR S/O.K. VAIDYALINKAM 8/9, KEELAS AGRAHARAM, THUTHUKKUDI.P.O, NANNILAM TALUK, TAMILNADU-610015. 3UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, IST FLOOR, 42, MUTT STREET,, KUMBAKONAM.P.O, PIN - 612 001, TAMILNADU. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,UNITED INDIA INSU ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 8 OF 2011 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** The appellant was the petitioner in OP(MV) No.2801/2005 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The said claim petition was submitted by her seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 31.08.2005, when the car which the appellant was driving, dashed against a truck driven by the 1st respondent. The said vehicle was owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. The appellant was aged 58 years at the time of the accident and was a housewife. The monthly income claimed was Rs.2,500/-. It is claimed that she sustained serious injuries in the accident and the claim petition was submitted in such circumstances. 2. The 3rd respondent insurer alone contested the matter by filing a written statement wherein they admitted the coverage of policy for the vehicle, but the liability was disputed. The quantum of compensation was also disputed by them. 3. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1 and as documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A4 were marked ``` MACA NO. 8 OF 2011 ``` ``` 3 ``` from the side of the appellant. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the 1st respondent in driving the truck and being the insurer; the 3rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.90,000/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited by the 3rd respondent with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate cost. This appeal is submitted by the appellant seeking enhancement of compensation in such circumstances. 4. Heard Sri.G. Balamuraleedharan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.P.K. Manjokumar, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 5. The only question that arises here is relating to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that, even though an amount of Rs.64,482.38/- was claimed towards the treatment expenses, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.30,100/-. It was pointed out that the entire compensation, as claimed under the said head, was not ``` MACA NO. 8 OF 2011 ``` ``` 4 ``` granted merely because of the reason that, the final bill issued by the hospital was not produced. The learned counsel produced the final bill dated 17.09.2005 along with I.A. No.1/2024. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent opposed the production of the said document, mainly contending that, despite the fact that the appellant was in possession of the said document, they did not submit the same before the Tribunal at the time of the evidence. Of course, it is true that there are lapses on the part of the appellant in producing the said document before the Tribunal. However, on going through the original final bill produced along with the said application, I do not find any reason to suspect the veracity of the same. The amount shown therein is Rs.42,542/and it pertains to the treatment availed by the appellant for the period from 02.09.2005 to 17.09.2005. The specific case of the appellant is that, she sustained injuries in the accident on 31.08.2005 at a place at Tamil Nadu and thereafter she was brought to the Ernakulam Medical Centre on 02.09.2005 where she availed the treatment. In such circumstances, I am inclined to accept the said document. Therefore, instead of Rs.30,100/- ``` MACA NO. 8 OF 2011 ``` ``` 5 ``` awarded by the Tribunal, the amount towards treatment expenses is to be fixed as Rs.42,542/- as shown in the said certificate. The said certificate is also marked in evidence as Ext.A5. This would result in an additional compensation of Rs.12,442/-. 6. Another head which requires consideration is loss of income. The Tribunal granted compensation under this head for a period of five months @ Rs.2,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant would point out that a reasonable monthly income has to be taken into account, considering the ground realities that existed in the year 2005. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decisions rendered by the 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 learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, Insurance Company, contends that, even if any necessity arises for taking a higher monthly income, that cannot under any circumstances be a figure higher than Rs.2,500/- which is the monthly income declared by her in the claim petition. However, I am not inclined to accept the ``` MACA NO. 8 OF 2011 ``` ``` 6 ``` said contentions. This is particularly because there is no dispute as to the status of the appellant as a housewife. As far as a housewife is concerned, she is a non-earning member and the services she renders to the family, including earning members, cannot be measured in terms of money. However, as the compensation has to be fixed, it becomes necessary to evaluate the said services in terms of money. While doing the said exercise, the amount has to be fixed, taking note of the monthly income that an able-bodied person can get in similar circumstances. The guideline for assessing the compensation is available as per the method of computation evolved from the principles laid in **Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq (supra),** wherein the monthly income of an ordinary worker even without any skills was determined as Rs.4,500/- for the year 2004. In this case the accident occurred in the year 2005. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to fix it as Rs.5,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under this head for a period of five months and therefore, the additional compensation under this head would come to Rs.15,000/[(5,000x5)–10,000]. 7. When moving on to other heads, it could be seen that ``` MACA NO. 8 OF 2011 ``` ``` 7 ``` the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering was Rs.20,000/- which appears to be on the lower side. It is to be noted that the documents would indicate that the appellant sustained the following injuries: sutured wound on the forehead, contusion (L) side of the chest, fracture 4 to 7 ribs (L) side and subarachnoid haemorrhage. She availed inpatient treatment for 15 days. Even thereafter, she continued the treatment for a long period. It is also a fact that the Tribunal itself found that she was prevented from pursuing her day-to-day activities for a period of five months, and the compensation for loss of earnings was calculated accordingly. In such circumstances, taking note of the nature of the injuries, which include fractures of 4 to 7 ribs, I deem it appropriate to grant a further sum of Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering. 8. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of amenities and inconvenience in life was only Rs.15,000/-. I have already mentioned the injuries sustained by the appellant in the above para, and certainly, the same would result in serious inconvenience and difficulties to the petitioner. In such ``` MACA NO. 8 OF 2011 ``` ``` 8 ``` circumstances, a further sum of Rs.15,000/- is granted under the said heads. Thus, the total additional compensation is determined as Rs.57,442/- (12,442 + 15,000 + 15,000 + 15,000). 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The award dated 09.04.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, is hereby modified by granting an additional compensation of Rs.57,442/- (Rupees fifty-seven thousand four hundred and forty-two only) and the 3rd respondent shall deposit the said amount along with interest at the rate as ordered by the Tribunal and with proportionate cost within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy this judgment. However, it is clarified that as a delay of 160 days in filing the appeal, the 3rd respondent shall be entitled to exclude the said period while computing the interest for the additional compensation. It is further clarified that the claimant 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 period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case, she fails to furnish the said details, it shall be ``` 9 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 8 OF 2011`** open for the insurance company to deposit the same amount before the Tribunal. **Sd/-** **`ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE`** ncd/scs ``` 10 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 8 OF 2011`** ## **`APPENDIX OF MACA 8/2011`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1THE ORIGINAL FINAL BILL ISSUED BY THE ERNAKULAM MEDICAL CENTRE HOSPITAL DATED 17/09/2005 TO THE APPELLANT ```