Partly allowed

Preetha v. S.Ranganathan

Kerala HC9 Nov 2021MACA/1627/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award, the High Court re-evaluated the compensation quantum. The Court accepted the appellant's actual salary evidence against the Tribunal's lower figure, recalculated loss of earnings and disability compensation, and partially allowed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation by Rs.47,289/- with interest at 7% per annum and cost; ordered deposit by second respondent.

Preetha Vs S.Ranganathan — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1943
MACA NO. 1627 OF 2009

¶5

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 19.06.2006 IN OP(MV)NO.300/2002 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶6

PREETHA,
W/O. RAJEEV,
MADATHATTU HOUSE,
NEDUMBASSERY.

¶7

BY ADV SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR

¶8

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 S.RANGANATHAN, 42/2, MSG QUARTERS, JUBILEE GARDEN, THE NILGIRIS.

¶10

2 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. WELLINGTON, NILGIRI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU.

¶11

3 KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI.

¶12

BY ADV SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR

¶13

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

M.A.C.A.No.1627/2009

¶15

-:2:-

¶16

Dated this the 9^th day of November,2021

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

The appellant was the petitioner in O.P. (MV)No.300/2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents before the Tribunal.

¶19

The appellant had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries that she sustained in an accident on 26.10.2001. It was her case that, on the above said day, while she was travelling pillion on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. KL-7P-7679 through the Aluva-Angamaly National Highway road, when she reached the place of occurrence, a Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.TN-38A-2896(jeep) driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the appellant. The jeep was owned by the first respondent and insured with

¶20

M.A.C.A.No.1627/2009

¶21

-:3:-

¶22

the second respondent. The third respondent was the insurer of the motorcycle. The appellant was employed as a Document Assistant in AVT Natural Products Limited, Aluva and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.4,387/-. The accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the jeep. The appellant sustained serious injuries and was hospitalised for a period of 48 days. Hence, the appellant claimed a compensation of Rs.5,27,322/- from the respondents.

¶23

The first respondent did not contest the proceedings and was set ex parte.

¶24

The second respondent had filed a written statement, admitting that the jeep had a valid insurance policy. Nevertheless, it was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. The second respondent also disputed the age, income and occupation of the appellant.

¶25

M.A.C.A.No.1627/2009

¶26

-:4:-

¶27

The third respondent had filed a written

¶28

statement admitting that the motorcycle had a valid insurance coverage. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the jeep. Hence, the third respondent prayed for exoneration of any liability.

¶29

The appellant’s employer was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A21 were marked in evidence. The appellant also summoned and marked Exts.X1 and X2 salary registers through PW1. The second respondent produced the insurance policy of the offending jeep, which was marked as Ext.B1.

¶30

The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part, by permitting the appellant to realise an amount of Rs.2,72,300/- with interest and a cost from the second respondent.

¶31

Dissatisfied with the quantum of

¶32

M.A.C.A.No.1627/2009

¶33

-:5:-

¶34

compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner is in appeal.

¶35

Heard; Sri. V.V. Nandagopal Nambiar, the

¶36

learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and Smt. Raji T. Bhaskar, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/insurer and the learned Government pleader appearing for the third respondent.

¶37

The sole question that emerges for consideration in the appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just?

¶38

Negligence and liability:

¶39

Ext.A5 chargesheet filed by the Changamanadu Police in Crime No.382/2001 substantiates that the accident happened due to negligence of the driver of the jeep. Admittedly, jeep was owned by the first respondent and insured with

¶40

M.A.C.A.No.1627/2009

¶41

-:6:-

¶42

the second respondent. The second respondent has admitted that the jeep had a valid insurance policy and has not proved that the first respondent has violated the insurance policy conditions. Therefore, the second respondent is to indemnify the liability of the first respondent arising out of the accident.

¶43

Salary of the appellant:

¶44

The appellant had specifically pleaded in the claim petition that she was employed as a Document Assistant in AVT Natural Products Limited, Aluva and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.4,387/-. She produced Ext.A18 salary certificate issued by her employer, which was proved through PW1, wherein her salary is certified at Rs.4,387/-. There were certain statutory deductions made as contributions to the Employees’ Provident Fund and Employees’ State Insurance. The appellant had also summoned Exts.X1 and X2 salary registers of her employer and proved it

¶45

M.A.C.A.No.1627/2009

¶46

-:7:-

¶47

through PW1 which again proves that the appellant was being paid Rs.4,387/- as her monthly salary. However, the Tribunal for the reason that the appellant was employed in a private concern, fixed the monthly salary of the appellant at Rs.2,500/-. This course, according to me, is erroneous and wrong.

¶48

In view of the overwhelming evidence on record in form of Exts.A18, X1 and X2 which stand corroborated through PW1. I have no hesitation in my mind to accept Ext.A18 salary certificate and fixing the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.4,387/-.

¶49

Even though in Kalpanaraj & Ors. v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation [(2015) 2 SCC 764], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the income tax portion has to be deducted from the income of an injured/claimant, in the instant case, as the appellant is a lady and her gross yearly income amounts to Rs.52,644/-, she falls well below the

¶50

M.A.C.A.No.1627/2009

¶51

-:8:-

¶52

income tax ceiling limit. Therefore, I accept the monthly salary of the appellant at Rs.4,387/-.

¶53

Loss of earnings:

¶54

The appellant has produced Ext.A19 certificate issued by her employer which has been proved through PW1 stating that the appellant was on loss of pay for a period from 26.10.2001 to 31.05.2002, i.e., a period of seven months. Therefore, in view of the re-fixation of the monthly salary of the appellant at Rs.4,387/-, I re-refix the ‘loss of earnings’ at Rs.30,709/-, instead of Rs.17,500/- fixed by the Tribunal.

¶55

Loss due to disability

¶56

Taking into consideration the major injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident, which have been certified in Exts.A7, A8, A16 and A17 discharge summaries, the Tribunal has fixed the ‘functional disability’ of the appellant at 5%.

¶57

M.A.C.A.No.1627/2009

¶58

-:9:-

¶59

On a re-appreciation of the grievous injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident as evidenced from Ext.A6 wound certificate and the above mentioned discharge summaries, I hold that the assessment of ‘functional disability’ at 5% to be justifiable and correct.

¶60

In view of the re-fixation of the monthly salary of the appellant at Rs.4,387/-, I fix compensation for ‘loss due to disability’ at Rs.47,400/-, instead of Rs.25,500/- fixed by the Tribunal.

¶61

Bystander expenses and extra nourishment:

¶62

It is proved from Exts.A7, A8, A16 and A17 discharge summaries that the appellant was treated as an inpatient for a period of 48 days. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards ‘attendance charges’ and Rs.2,000/- towards ‘extra nourishment’, which according to me, is too meager. Taking into account the long period of hospitalisation that the

¶63

M.A.C.A.No.1627/2009

¶64

-:10:-

¶65

appellant had to undergo, I award an amount of Rs.200/- per day for a period of 48 days for both ‘bystander expenses’ and ‘extra nourishment’, which amounts to Rs.9,600/- each.

¶66

With respect to the other heads of compensation, I find that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable and just compensation.

¶67

On a comprehensive re-appreciation of the

¶68

pleadings and materials on record and the law referred to in the afore-cited decision, I am of the definite opinion that the appellant/petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below for easy reference.

¶69

Sl.No	Head of claim	Amount awarded by the Tribunal (in rupees)	Amounts modified and recalculated by this Court
1	Loss of earnings	17,500	30,709

¶70

M.A.C.A.No.1627/2009

¶71

-:11:-

¶72

2	Transport expenses	2,000	2,000
3	Clothing	250	250
4	Extra nourishment	2,000	9,600
5	Bystander expenses	5,000	9,600
6	Medical expenses	1,75,030	1,75,030
7	Pain and sufferings	25,000	25,000
8	Loss of amenities	20,000	20,000
9	Loss due to disability	25,500	47,400
	Total	2,72,300	3,19,589

¶73

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.47,289/- with interest on the enhanced compensation at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, after deducting interest for a period of 935 days i.e., the period of delay in preferring this appeal, as directed by this Court on 15.09.2021 in C.M.Appln.No.2/2009, and a cost of Rs.5,000/-. The second respondent is ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest

¶74

M.A.C.A.No.1627/2009

¶75

-:12:-

¶76

and cost before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The Tribunal shall disburse the enhanced compensation to the appellant/petitioner, in accordance with law.

¶77

Sd/-

¶78

C.S.DIAS,JUDGE

¶79

DST/09.11.21

¶80

//True copy/ P.A.To Judge

Preetha v. S.Ranganathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Preetha v. S.Ranganathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.S.Sabin Vs Ajesh Kumar K.A.

Abdulla, S/O.Bavakutty & Others Vs O.Rajan etc.

A.M.Karappan Vs Swapna

Nellikunnummal Peravan Vs Mullan Abdul Salam

Kunhi Chekkini Vs Mohammed Sajid and Another

Jermy Vs v.J.Thomas and Others