Partly allowed

Ranjesh Kumar v. Director General of Police

Kerala HC6 Jan 2022MACA/392/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows the appeal filed by an injured driver who contested the quantum of compensation awarded in Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The High Court re-fixed his notional monthly income to Rs.4,500/- and enhanced compensation for loss of earnings and disability loss by Rs.49,500/- to be deposited by the insurance company. It relied on Supreme Court precedents for income calculation and

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; enhancement of compensation by Rs.49,500/- with interest; insurer to deposit amount and costs.

Ranjesh Kumar Vs Director General of Police — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

MACA NO. 392 OF 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 16TH POUSHA, 1943

¶7

MACA NO. 392 OF 2012

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(MV) 987/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PUNALUR

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶10

RANJESH KUMAR AGED 33 YEARS S/O.VASUDEVAN,KIDARAKKUZHY VEEDU, VENCHEMPU P.O, KARAVALOOR, PUNALUR.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.R.KISHORE SRI.ARUN BABU SRI.G.HARIPRASAD

¶12

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶14

2 MANOJ S/O.MANIYAN PILLAI, MANOJ BHAVAN, PIRACKAL, KARAVALOOR P.O, PUNALUR 691 305.

¶15

3 THE DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER KERALA STTE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶16

4 RAVEENDRAN T S/O.THANKAPPAN, NAVADHARA BHAVAN, KAITHAKODU P.O, KUNDARA 691 501.

¶17

5 SHIBU KUMAR S/O.GOPALAN, VENGAVILA VEEDU, ERICHIKKAL, KARAVALOOR P.O, KOLLAM 691 001.

¶18

MACA NO. 392 OF 2012

¶19

¶20

6 GOPALAN

¶21

VENGAVILA VEEDU, ERICHIKKAL, KARAVALOOR P.O, KOLLAM 691 001.

¶22

BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.JOSHI THANNIKKAMATTOM

¶23

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

MACA NO. 392 OF 2012

¶25

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The appellant was the petitioner in O.P(MV) No.987/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents before the Tribunal.

¶28

The appellant had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries that he sustained in an accident on 5.3.2005. It was his case that, on the abovesaid day, while he was driving a car bearing Reg.No.KL-9A -4536 through the Anchal-Punalur road, a jeep bearing Reg.No.KL-01 B/5204 (Jeep), driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the car. The appellant sustained serious injuries including a fracture on his right femur. He was treated as an inpatient at the Medical College Hospital,

¶29

MACA NO. 392 OF 2012

¶30

¶31

Thiruvananthapuram for the period from 5.3.2005 to 30.3.2005. An operation had to be conducted on 23.5.2005. The Jeep was owned by the 1^st respondent and insured with the 3^rd respondent. The additional respondents 4 and 5 were the subsequent purchasers of the Jeep. Pending the claim petition, the 5^th respondent died and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional respondents 6 and 7. The appellant claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondents.

¶32

The respondents 1, 2 and 4 to 7 did not contest the proceeding and were set ex parte.

¶33

The 3^rd respondent had filed separate written statement admitting that the Jeep had a valid insurance coverage. The 3^rd respondent disputed the age, occupation and income of the appellant.

¶34

The appellant had examined himself and two other witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and marked Exts.A1 to A17 in evidence. The respondents did not let in any evidence.

¶35

MACA NO. 392 OF 2012

¶36

¶37

The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, allowed the claim petition, in part, by permitting the appellant to recover from the 3^rd respondent an amount of Rs.85,010/- with interest and costs.

¶38

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner is in appeal.

¶39

Heard; Sri.Kishore.R, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 & 3.

¶40

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

¶41

Negligence and liability

¶42

Ext.A6 final report filed by the Punalur Police in Crime No.114/2005 substantiates that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2^nd respondent. Undisputedly, the 3^rd respondent was the insurer of the Jeep. The 3^rd respondent has not proved that the owners of

¶43

the Jeep had violated the insurance policy conditions.

¶44

MACA NO. 392 OF 2012

¶45

¶46

Therefore, the 3^rd respondent is to indemnify the liability of the owners of the Jeep to pay the compensation amount to the appellant.

¶47

Income

¶48

The appellant had claimed that he was a driver by profession and was earning a monthly income of Rs.4,500/-/. For the want of materials, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs.2,250/-.

¶49

In Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year 2004, at Rs.4,500/- per month.

¶50

Taking note of the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2005, and that the appellant had claimed that he was earning a monthly income of Rs.4,500/-, I re-fix the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs.4,500/-, as claimed in the claim petition.

¶51

MACA NO. 392 OF 2012

¶52

¶53

Loss of earnings

¶54

The Tribunal has held that the appellant was indisposed for a period of four months. In view of the refixation of the appellant's monthly income at Rs.4,500/- I re-fix the compensation for 'loss of earnings' at Rs.18,000/-, instead of Rs.9,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶55

Loss due to disability

¶56

The appellant had produced Ext.A12 disability certificate, wherein, it is certified that the appellant has suffered a permanent disability of 14%.

¶57

The Tribunal, after appreciating the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant, fixed his functional disability at 10%. I find the assessment made by the Tribunal to be correct and justifiable. However, in view of the re-fixation of the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs.4,500/-, and considering the fact the appellant was 33 years at the time of the accident and the relevant multiplier being '17', as per the law laid down in

¶58

MACA NO. 392 OF 2012

¶59

¶60

Sarla Verma & Otrs Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

¶61

[(2009) 6 SCC 121], I re-fix the compensatin for loss due to disability’ at Rs.86,400/-, instead of Rs.45,900/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶62

Other heads of compensation

¶63

With respect to the other heads of compensation,

¶64

I find that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable and just compensation.

¶65

In the result, the appeal is allowed, in part, by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.49,500/- (i.e an amount of Rs.9,000/- towards enhancement of compensation under the head 'loss of earnings' and Rs.40,500/- under the head 'loss due to disability) with interest on the amount of Rs.49,500/- at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and a cost of Rs.5,000/-. The 3^rd respondent is ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.49,500/- with interest and costs before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the

¶66

MACA NO. 392 OF 2012 9

¶67

date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Immediately on the compensation amount being deposited, the Tribunal shall disburse the compensation amount to the appellant/petitioner in accordance with law.

¶68

Ma/06.01.2022

¶69

Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

Ranjesh Kumar v. Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjesh Kumar v. Director General of Police

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

Mehaboob Ali P., Vs Moideen Koya

Mehaboob Ali P. Vs Shaharja

Arun Shanmughadas Vs Smt.Lucy Sebastian

Udaya Kumar Vs Jacob

Remavathi Bhaskaran Vs Rajeevan

Saidalavi Vs Mohammedali