Veeraiyan @ Vinayan v. Rajeev P.S Soman Nair and Sreekumar C.R and The Manager, Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/8TH ASWINA, 1938 MACA.No. 2998 of 2016 () ------------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 902/2012 of MACT, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 14-06-2016 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: ----------------------- VEERAIYAN @ VINAYAN AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. KALIYAMOORTY, CHEMBARATHIMOOTTIL HOUSE, (PRAVEENA BHAVAN), ARREEKKAKAVU, MANIYAR P.O., RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN- 689 672. BY ADVS.SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.R.RANJITH SRI.I.STEVENSON SRI.N.MANU THAMPI SRI.P.R.JAYASANKAR SRI.N.BIJA KRISHNA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3.: -------------------------------------------- 1. RAJEEV P.S SOMAN NAIR, PARACKAL HOUSE, PUTHUSSERYMALA P.O., RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN- 689 672. 2. SREEKUMAR C.R, JAI SADHANAM, MANDIRAM P.O., RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN- 689 672. 3. THE MANAGER, SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, E-8, EPIP, RII COMPANY, SITAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN PIN- 302022. R3 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW R3 BY ADV. SMT.PREETHY R. NAIR THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR** ## **& K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.** ## **========================== M.A.C.A. No.2998 OF 2016** **==========================** Dated this the 30[th] day of September, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** ## _Jyothindranath, J._ This appeal is preferred by the claimant in O.P.(MV).No.902 of 2012 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. The challenge is against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2.When the appeal came up for admission, the learned counsel Sri.M.T.Suresh Kumar, appearing for the appellant, submitted before us that here is a case where the claimant who was only aged 47 years sustained very severe injuries on facial area in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 7.4.2012. The grievance of the appellant is that **M.A.C.A.2998/2016** 2 the quantum of compensation awarded is on a lower side and an interference by this Court is warranted. 3.The learned senior counsel, Sri.Jacob Mathew P., appearing for the insurance company, submitted before us that here is a case where there is no fracture injury or any other grievous injury. There is only some facial injuries for which the appellant was treated as inpatient for a period of four days. It is the submission that against a claim of `4,00,000/-, a total compensation of `83,000/- was granted by the Tribunal which is a just compensation and an interference by this Court is not warranted. 4.We perused the impugned award. It is found that, this appeal can be disposed of, at the admission stage itself. We heard the counsel in detail. 5.In this case, the accident occurred on 7.04.2012 and the **M.A.C.A.2998/2016** 3 appellant herein was admitted in the hospital and was seen discharged on 11.4.2012. Ext.A9 is the discharge summary which shows that he sustained head injury as well as soft tissue injuries. Surely, no disability certificate produced before the Tribunal. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that here is a case where there is facial disfigurement. No amount granted by the Tribunal towards the said head. It is the submission made before us that the Doctor advised him plastic surgery. The said aspect can be evidenced from paragraph 13 of the impugned award. 6.On a perusal of the impugned award, it is seen that the appellant was advised to repair the facial disfigurement caused by the injury on a plastic surgery consultation. Thus, it can be seen that, there is force in the submission made by the appellant. Another aspect highlighted is regarding the income taken by the Tribunal for assessment purpose. It is the case of the appellant that he was working in Gulf countries as a security person and the accident **M.A.C.A.2998/2016** 4 occurred while he was on leave. It is also the case of the appellant that due to injury, he lost his job. It can be seen that neither the passport nor any other document produced to substantiate his claim in this regard. Surely, the Tribunal considered only `6,500/- as the monthly income. The accident occurred in the year 2012. Considering all aspects, it will be only just and proper to consider `7,500/- as the monthly income especially in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.** [ **(2011) 13 SCC 236]** wherein the income of a coolie was considered as `4500/- that also in an accident occurred in the year 2004. Thus, considering the income of the appellant as `7,500 and also perusing the schedule attached to the award, it can be seen that he will be entitled for an additional compensation of `3,000/- on the head of loss of earning. The said amount awarded. On the heads of transportation to hospital, extra nourishment, damage to clothing etc., handsome amount is seen awarded. No amount is seen awarded on the head of loss of amenities **M.A.C.A.2998/2016** 5 and enjoyment of life. It is a fact he was advised by the Department of Plastic Surgery to have repaired the facial wound. Considering the fact that he sustained soft tissue injury on face and there was medical advise to do plastic surgery, we feel that some amount has to be awarded on the head of loss of amenities. Thus, a sum of `15,000/awarded on this head. Thus, the appellant will be entitled for an additional compensation of `18,000/- which will bear 8% interest from the date of the petition till reaslisation. The insurance company shall pay the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There will be no order as to costs. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **Sd/-** ## **K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH (JUDGE)** **spc/** **M.A.C.A.2998/2016** 6 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **M.A.C.A.2998/2016** 7 **JUDGMENT September, 2010** **M.A.C.A.2998/2016** 8