Vasantha Surendran vs Shaji Mon, Somasundran, ICICI Lombard GIC Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/5TH KARTHIKA, 1938 MACA.No. 3347 of 2016 () ------------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 706/2011 of M.A.C.T., THALASSERY DATED 25-02-2016 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER : ------------------------ VASANTHA SURENDRAN AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. SURENDRAN, DIL NIVAS, MANAL, CHALAD, KANNUR. ## BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS : ----------------------------------- ## 1. SHAJI MON AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED, POOLAKKODE HOUSE, ARRAYUR P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 505. (DRIVER OF THE 3 WHEELER GOODS CARRIAGE BEARING NO.KL-10/AA - 1508) ## 2. SOMASUNDRAN S/O. RAVUNNI NAIR, SOMA NIVAS, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 121. (R.C.OWNER OF THE 3 WHEELER GOODS CARRIAGE BEARING NO.KL-10/AA - 1508). 3. ICICI LOMBARD GIC LIMITED MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 505. (INSURER OF THE 3 WHEELER GOODS CARRIAGE BEARING NO.KL-10/AA 1508). ## R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.AJITH KUMAR THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA.3347/2016 ## APPENDIX APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1:PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR & K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ. ========================== M.A.C.A. No.3347 OF 2016 ==========================** Dated this the 27[th] day of October, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** _Ravikumar, J._ The injured-petitioner comes up in appeal on being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal as per award in O.P.(MV).No.706 of 2011. On 12.9.2010, at 5 a.m, while she was travelling in a car, the offending vehicle which is a Tata Safari Car bearing Reg.No.KL-13T/7667, driven by the first respondent, hit against the said car and she sustained injuries. She was treated as inpatient for a period of 51 days. The injuries sustained by her resulted in permanent disability. It is in the said circumstances that claiming a total compensation of `30,00,000/-, the claim petition was filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. **M.A.C.A.3347/2016** 2 2.Before the Tribunal, the appellant got herself examined as PW1 besides getting marked Exts.A1 to A14. Ext.C1 is the disability certificate. No evidence was tendered by the respondents. The Tribunal, as per the impugned award, granted a total compensation of `11,89,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. It is seeking enhancement of the said quantum of compensation that the captioned appeal has been preferred. 3.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Ajith Kumar R., the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent-insurance company. In this case, the only dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation. While the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is not just compensation, the learned counsel for the insurance company contended that taking into account the nature of the injuries and the consequential permanent disability, the Tribunal has granted just compensation as per the impugned award and **M.A.C.A.3347/2016** 3 therefore, no appellate interference is called for. 4.In the claim petition it is stated that the appellant was a tailor by profession and was earning `10,000/- per month. No cogent evidence whatsoever was adduced by the appellant to support her averments regarding occupation and income. True that she deposed from the box that she is a tailor by profession. In such circumstances, even if it is taken that she was a tailor by profession, there is absolute absence of any evidence regarding the income of the appellant. When that be so, the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any error in fixing the monthly income notionally. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income as `5,000/-. Taking into account the fact that the appellant was aged 52 years on the date of the accident and that the accident occurred in the year 2010, the fixation of monthly income cannot be said to be so meagre warranting an interference. Considering the appellant's age at the time of the accident, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier as '11'. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2)** **M.A.C.A.3347/2016** 4 **KLT 802 (SC)],** it can only be said that the Tribunal has correctly identified the multiplier. As regards the permanent disability, it can be seen that the medical board assessed 32% disability and the Tribunal took 40% disability, for calculation purpose. We do not find any substance in the contention of the appellant that the Tribunal erred in not taking the disability as functional disability and assessing it as 100% in view of failure to establish her actual occupation. On going through the schedule of compensation given in the impugned award, it can be seen that, under the heads 'pain and suffering' and 'loss of amenities and disfigurement', the Tribunal granted an amount of `2,64,000/-. In such circumstances, going through the compensation granted under different heads, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant was adequately compensated under all heads and it is a just compensation commensurating with the injuries sustained and their impact. In short, we are of the view that the learned counsel for the third respondent is justified in contending that the appellant was adequately compensated and therefore, no appellate interference is **M.A.C.A.3347/2016** 5 called for. The long and short of the discussions is that the appellant has failed to bring out any ground warranting appellate interference. In such circumstances, this appeal is dismissed _in limine._ No order as to costs. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **Sd/-** **K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH (JUDGE)** **spc/** **M.A.C.A.3347/2016** 6 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** **M.A.C.A.3347/2016** 7