In an appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, this court enhanced compensation for a student injured in a motor vehicle accident. The court recalculated functional disability and loss of earnings, increasing the total award from Rs. 2,72,200 to Rs. 5,90,000.
Compensation enhanced to Rs. 5,90,000 with 7% p.a. interest and costs ordered.
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 MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 15TH POUSHA, 1943
MACA NO. 2333 OF 2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 2008/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,THRISSUR
APPELLANT/S:
ARUN SHANMUGHADAS S/O.SHANMUGHADAS,RESIDING AT PUZHANKANDANATHIL HOUSE P.O.MUNDUPARAMBU,MALAPPURAM DIST BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.K.A.ANAS SRI.A.R.NIMOD
RESPONDENT/S:
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
MACA No.2333 of 2012
C.S.DIAS, J.
======================
MACA No.2333 of 2012
======================
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2022.
JUDGMENT
The appellant was the petitioner in OP (MV) No.2008/2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents before the Tribunal.
3
MACA No.2333 of 2012
hit the jeep. In the accident, the appellant sustained serious injuries including central fracture dislocation on the left side of pelvis, depressed fracture of left orbital roof, fracture lateral wall of orbit roof, small extra dural haematoma left frontal area, swelling of left hip, left proximal tibia, lacerated wound on the left knee and multiple facial wound. He was treated at the West Fort High Tech Hospital, Thrissur from 4.4.2006 to 27.4.2006. The appellant was a sixth semester B.Tech student in Vidya Academy of Science and Technology, Thalakkottukara , Thrissur. The first respondent was the owner and the third respondent was the insurer of the bus. Hence, the appellant claimed a compensation of Rs.10,68,500/- from the respondents, which claim was limited to Rs.9,50,000/-.
4
MACA No.2333 of 2012
2006 of 2006 before the same Tribunal.
written statements in all the claim petitions. The third respondent admitted that the bus had a valid insurance coverage. Nevertheless, the third respondent contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the appellant. The third respondent also disputed the age, income and occupation of each of the petitioners.
not let in any evidence.
5
MACA No.2333 of 2012
materials on record, by its common award, allowed the captioned claim petition, by permitting the appellant to realise from the third respondent an amount of Rs.2,72,200/- with interest and cost.
Negligence and liability
6
MACA No.2333 of 2012
was the owner and the third respondent was the insurer of the bus. The respondents have not let in any evidence to discredit Ext A4 final report. The third respondent has also not proved that the first respondent had violated the insurance policy conditions. Therefore, the third respondent is to indemnify the liability of the first respondent arising out of the accident.
Notional Income
7
MACA No.2333 of 2012
instant case also happened in the year 2006, I am of the firm opinion that the notional monthly income of the appellant can also be fixed at Rs.9,000/-.
Multiplier
Disability
8
MACA No.2333 of 2012
620(SC)] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case the Tribunal is not satisfied with the disability certificate produced before it, it is the bounden duty of the Tribunal to refer the injured-claimant to a duly constituted Medical Board. It is also observed, that what needs to be looked into in an injury claim is the functional disability of the injured-claimant.
Loss due to disability
9
MACA No.2333 of 2012
functional disability at 20%, I award the appellant an amount of Rs.3,88,800- towards loss due to disability.
Loss of earnings
Other heads of compensation
10
MACA No.2333 of 2012
entitled for enhancement of compensation as modified and re-calculated above, and given in the table below for
easy reference.
| SI. No |
Head of claim | Amount awarded by the Tribunal (in rupees) |
Amounts modified and recalculated bythis Court |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Loss of earnings | 12,000/- | 27,000/- |
| 2 | Transportation expenses |
3,000/- | 3,000/- |
| 3 | Bystander expenses | 3,450/- | 3,450/- |
| 4 | Medical expenses | 1,32,304/- | 1,32,304/- |
| 5 | Pain and sufferings | 20,000/- | 20,000/- |
| 6 | Loss of amenities etc | 15,000/- | 15,000/- |
| 7 | Loss due to disability | 86,400/- | 3,88,800/- |
| Total | 2,72,154/- rounded off to Rs.2,72,200/- |
5,89,554/- rounded off to 5,90,000/- |
In the result, the appeal is allowed, by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.3,17,800/- (Rupees Three Lakh Seventeen Thousand Eight Hundred only) with interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of
11
MACA No.2333 of 2012
claim petition till the date of realization and a cost of Rs.10,000/-. The third respondent/insurer is ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest and costs before the Tribunal within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Immediately on the compensation amount being deposited, the Tribunal shall disburse the same to the appellant, in accordance with law.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
sks/5.1.2022
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is reasonable and just.
Whether the functional disability of the appellant should be recalculated based on medical evidence.
Whether the enhancement of compensation towards loss of earnings and disability is justified.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Co Ltd v. Fathimath ZuharaFollowed¶14
National Insurance Co Ltd v. Fathimath Zuhara [2016 (3) KLT 459]
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport CorporationFollowed¶16
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121] · Who else cites this
Raj Kumar v. Ajay KumarFollowed¶18
Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [2011 (1) KLT 620(SC)]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Arun Shanmughadas
Lucy Sebastian
Jashim
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
C.S. Dias
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
