The High Court allowed the appeal in part, enhancing the compensation awarded to the motor accident claimant. The Court fixed the monthly income at Rs. 5,000 and increased the total compensation to Rs. 1,97,700 along with interest.
Compensation enhanced to Rs. 1,97,700 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, less the period of delay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1943
MACA NO. 1469 OF 2012
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OPMV 910/2006 DATED 22ND DAY OF MAY 2010 ON
THE FIEL OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SHIBINLAL M.K. AGED 29 YEARS S/O.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, HARIPADAM, MULLERI VEEDU, THAMARASSERY POST, RAROTH AMSOM, KEDAVOOR DESOM, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV SMT.K.V.RESHMI
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:
1 K.P.UMMER S/O.CHERIYAMUHAMMED HAJI, KOTTAPADATH HOUSE, NEELESWARAM POST, KOZHIKODE-673 572.
2 SHAMEER AHAMMED S/O,MOOSA, CHUNGAKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, THAMARASSERY, CHUNGAM, KOZHIKODE-673 573. 3 THE UNITED INAIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE, WHITE LINES BUILDINGS, KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001. BY ADV SMT.P.A.REZIYA
SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKKAD-R3
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.03.2022, THE COURT ON 10.03.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
MACA.No.1469 of 2012
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the claimant in O.P.(M.V) No.910/2006 on the file of Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 (in short the Act) towards compensation for the injury sustained by the appellant/claimant (hereinafter be referred as the claimant).
3
MACA.No.1469 of 2012
admitted. The allegations regarding the negligence and injuries as well as the claim under various heads are denied.
| Compensation allowed at different heads |
Amount awarded Rs. |
|---|---|
| Transport | 750-00 |
| Extra nourishment | 500-00 |
| Loss of earnings | 4,000-00 |
| Bystander's expenses | 1,200-00 |
MACA.No.1469 of 2012
4
| Compensation allowed at different heads |
Amount awarded Rs. |
|---|---|
| Treatment expenses | 56,209-00 |
| Pain and suffering | 10,000-00 |
| Permanent disability | 1,03,680-00 |
| Total | 1,76,339-00 |
by the Tribunal under various heads, claimant came up in appeal before this Court on various grounds stated in the memorandum of appeal.
learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent, Insurance Company. Lower court records were called for and perused.
claimant was an Engineering student aged 23 years. He sustained grievous injuries due to the accident. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are very low. It is also contented that the monthly income has been notionally fixed as Rs.2,000/which according to the learned counsel for the claimant is very low.
5
MACA.No.1469 of 2012
The claimant has got specific contention that the claimant was a student and a part time teacher also.
6
MACA.No.1469 of 2012
the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guess work, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time.
7
MACA.No.1469 of 2012
even in the appeal memorandum the claim is to take the income at least as Rs.3,000/-. In this case, the accident occurred on 15.2.2006. Claimant was alleged to be an Engineering student. But the age, income and occupation is denied by the insurer in the written statement. Though claimant is alleged to be an Engineering student, no document to substantiate that he is an Engineering student is produced by the claimant. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances, I find it just and proper to take the monthly income claimed in the petition as Rs.5,000/- per month.
8
MACA.No.1469 of 2012
damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. It is also held that a person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which injured has suffered as a result of such injury.
9
MACA.No.1469 of 2012
(and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : - Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, Future medical expenses, Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
10
MACA.No.1469 of 2012
view of the serious nature of injuries sustained by the claimant loss of earnings for 2 months calculated by the Tribunal is very low. Exhibit C1 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board would also give a detailed analysis of the assessment of disability sustained by the claimant. The Medical Board fixed 24% occupation disability. So in view of the nature of injuries and the disability assessed by the Medical Board, loss earning for 4 months appears to be just and reasonable. So, towards loss of earning claimant is entitled to get Rs.5,000x4=Rs.20,000/-. Deducting the amount already awarded the balance would be Rs.16,000/- (Rs.20,0004,000).
11
MACA.No.1469 of 2012
towards pain and suffering is very low. No amount is awarded towards loss of amenities also. So, taking into account the nature of injuries including fractures sustained by the claimant, an amount of Rs.20,000/- seems to be just and reasonable towards pain and suffering . Deducting the amount already awarded the balance would be Rs.10,000/- (Rs.20,000-10,000). Towards Loss of amenities an amount of Rs.15,000/ - is awarded. Towards bystander expense the Tribunal awarded Rs.100/- per day, the accident was in the year 2006. Rs.200/- per day can be taken towards bystander expense. Hence, towards bystander expenses claimant is entitled to get Rs.2,400/- (Rs.200x12). Deducting the amount already awarded, the claimant is entitled to get Rs.1,200/- (Rs.2,400-1200). So, the claimant is entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.1,55,520 + 16,000 + 15,000 + 10,000 + 1,200 = 1,97,720/-. It will be rounded to Rs.1,97,700/-.
12
MACA.No.1469 of 2012
Insurance Company, shall satisfy additional compensation granted in this appeal together with interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
The appellant shall provide the Bank account details (attested copy of relevant page of bank pass book, Bank Account number and IFSC code of the branch) before the Tribunal with a copy to the Standing Counsel for the insurer, within one month from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
M.R.ANITHA JUDGE
SMF
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for loss of earnings and other heads is justified given the nature of injuries.
Whether the quantum of monthly income for calculation of compensation should be enhanced considering the claimant's circumstances.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company LimitedReferred¶41
(2011) 13 SCC 236 · Who else cites this
Syed Sadiq Etc. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.Referred¶45
(2014) 2 SCC 735 · Who else cites this
Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr.Referred¶50
(2011) 1 SCC 343 : 2011 ACJ 1 : 2010 KHC 5021 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shibinlal M.K.
K.P. Umma
Shameer Ahammed
The United India Insurance Company Ltd
M.R. Anitha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
M.R. Anitha
Parties & counsel
