Suchitra A. v. K. Muhammed @ Kunhippa Haji, Shiju K.M. and The Oriental Insurance Company Limited

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945 ``` ## **`MACA NO.1319 OF 2013`** ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 06.01.2012 IN O.P.(MV)No.555 OF 2010 AND ORDER DATED 27.04.2012 IN I.A.No.398 OF 2012 IN O.P.(MV)NO.555 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE ``` ## **`APPELLANT/PETITIONER:`** ``` SUCHITRA A. D/O.SREENIVASAN, AGED 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHITHRA, PACHATHIRI AMSOM DESOM, P.O.PACHATTIRI, (VIA) TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676105. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SRI.M.V.DAS SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN SMT.PRINCY XAVIER ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 K.MUHAMMED @ KUNHIPPA HAJI S/O.UNNIALI HAJI, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT KARAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, P.O.THURAVVOR, PAYIPULLU, MALAPPURAM, PIN- 676006.`** - **`2 SHIJU K.M. S/O.MATHEW, AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUTTIYIL HOUSE, P.O.VAZHIKKADVU, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676014`** - **`3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED JASEELA COMPLED, BYPASS JUNCTION, NILAMPUR ROAD, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676 003`** ``` BY ADV SRI.V.P.K.PANICKER FOR R3 ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO.1319 OF 2013 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** The appellant was the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.555/2010 on the files of the Principal Motor Accident Claims, Kozhikode. The said claim petition was submitted by her seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 25.08.2009. The accident occurred when she was travelling in a bus bearing Registration No.KL 10 M 6829, it collided with another bus bearing Registration No.KL 08/ AF 5868, driven by the 2[nd] respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The 1[st] respondent was the owner of the bus bearing Registration No.KL 08/AF 5868 and it was insured with the 3[rd] respondent. According to the appellant, she was a P.G. student and also working as a Computer Teacher with a monthly income of Rs.7,000/-. She was 23 years old at the time of the accident. It was contended that, the injuries sustained by her resulted in physical disablement. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances. 2. The 3[rd] respondent/insurer alone contested the matter by filing a written statement. Even though they admitted the ``` MACA NO.1319 OF 2013 ``` ``` 3 ``` existence of a valid policy for the bus, they disputed negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The quantum of compensation was also disputed by them. 3. To substantiate the contentions, the appellant produced and marked Exts.A1 to A4. The Medical Board report was marked as Ext.C1. From the side of the respondents, Ext.X1 series were marked. After the trial, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.KL 08/AF 5868 and being the insurer, the 3[rd] respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. Initially, an award was passed on 06.01.2012 awarding compensation for Rs.90,416/- which was directed to be deposited by the 3[rd] respondent with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation with a cost of Rs.750/-. Subsequently, in I.A. No.398/2012, the original award was reviewed by fixing total compensation as Rs.2,55,110/- by including the amount of Rs.1,64,694/- covered as per certain medical bills which were omitted to be taken into account at the time of passing the original award. This appeal is submitted in ``` MACA NO.1319 OF 2013 ``` ``` 4 ``` such circumstances seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. Heard Sri.V.S. Chadrasekharan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Sri.V.P.K..Panicker, learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent. 5. The only question that arises for consideration is whether any enhancement of compensation is to be granted. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that, even though the appellant suffered serious injuries and consequential disablement, a meagre amount of Rs.5,100/- alone was awarded under the head of disability. It is seen from the records that an amount of Rs.5,100/- appears to be a calculation mistake. The compensation was seen assessed by taking monthly income as Rs.2,500/- only. Considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2009, the monthly income of Rs.2,500/- appears to be very meagre. According to the appellant, she was working as a Computer Teacher with a monthly income of Rs.7,000/-. Of course, it is true that no evidence was adduced to substantiate the employment or the monthly income she was receiving. However, when the method of computation evolved from the principles laid down by ``` MACA NO.1319 OF 2013 ``` ``` 5 ``` 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] is adopted, under no circumstances monthly income of Rs.7,000/- could be treated as unreasonable for an accident occurred in the year 2009. Therefore, the said amount can be accepted as the monthly income and it is ordered accordingly. As regards the percentage of disability, the Tribunal accepted the disability certified in Ext.C1, which is 11%. As the appellant was 23 years old at the time of the accident, the proper multiplier is 18, whereas the Tribunal applied only 17. Thus, when reassessing the compensation with the above criteria, the compensation for disability would be Rs.1,66,320/- (7,000 x 12 x 18 x 11/100). The amount already awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.5,100/-; thus, the additional amount would come to Rs.1,61,220/-. 6. The Tribunal awarded compensation for loss of earnings for a period of three months. The documents would indicate that the appellant suffered injuries of various types, ``` MACA NO.1319 OF 2013 ``` ``` 6 ``` including a fracture on her right femur, comminuted fracture on the right tibia and undisplaced fracture of the medial condyle (right knee). It is seen that she was admitted to the hospital on three occasions, and the total period of inpatient treatment extends to 21 days. Even after discharge, on all these occasions, she was under treatment. When all the aforesaid aspects are taken into consideration, I am of the view that, the appellant must have been prevented from pursuing her avocation at least for a period of four months. Hence, compensation for loss of earnings can be granted for the said period with the revised monthly income of Rs.7,000/-. This would result in an additional compensation of Rs.20,500/[(7,000 x 4) -7,500]. 7. The next head, which requires consideration, is the loss of amenities. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head is Rs.7,000/- which appears to be on the lower side. This is particularly because she sustained serious injuries and it resulted in physical disablement. The said injuries and disability were suffered by her at the young age of 23 years and the same would certainly affect the quality of her life. Therefore, reasonable ``` MACA NO.1319 OF 2013 ``` ``` 7 ``` compensation has to be granted for the loss of amenities and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant a further sum of Rs.18,000/- under the said head. Accordingly, the additional compensation is determined as Rs.1,99,720/-. 8. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The award passed on 06.01.2012 and modified as per I.A. No.398/2012 on 27.04.2012 by the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikde in O.P.(M.V.) No.555/2010 is hereby modified by granting an additional compensation of Rs.1,99,720/- (Rupees one lakh ninety nine thousand seven hundred and twenty only) and the said amount shall be deposited by the 3[rd] respondent 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. However, it is clarified that as there was delay of 195 days in filing the appeal and the same was condoned by this Court, subject to the condition that the appellant shall not be entitled for interest for the said period, the 3[rd] respondent shall be entitled to exclude the said period while computing the interest ``` MACA NO.1319 OF 2013 ``` ``` 8 ``` on 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 open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal. ``` Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE ``` scs