Partly allowed

Manu v. Nibu.M.Varghese

Kerala HC15 Feb 2024MACA/59/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for crush injuries and disability suffered by a passenger who fell from a bus driven negligently. The court enhanced compensation under heads of disability, loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, awarding additional Rs.55,840 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.55,840/- with interest at 8% per annum from date of petition till realisation, with proportionate cost, directed to be deposited by insurer (3rd respondent).

Manu Vs Nibu.M.Varghese — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945

¶5

MACA NO. 59 OF 2013

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.04.2012 IN OPMV NO.1760 OF
2008 OF SPECIAL C SPE/CBI-I&3 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT / I
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶7

MANU

¶8

AGED 25 YEARS

¶9

LATE VELAYUDHAN, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ARACKAPPADY
VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT THELAKKATTU MOOLEVETTIL HOUSE,
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADVS.
SRI.ABRAHAM K.JOHN
SMT.C.G.ARUNDHATHI

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 NIBU.M.VARGHESE S/O VARGHESE, MYLATTUMOLEL HOUSE, VALAMPOOR, KOLAMKUDY, PATTIMATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 542(DRIVER)

¶13

2 KUNJU MOHAMMED

¶14

S/O HASSAN, PARAKKUNNATHU HOUSE, CHELAKKULAM, VENGOLA P.O, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, 683554 (OWNER)

¶15

3 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD CHITTOOR ROAD, SOUTH JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM 682016 (INSURER)

¶16

BY ADV SRI.E.M.JOSEPH

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶18

MACA No.59 OF 2013

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The appellant was the petitioner in OP(MV)

¶22

No.1760/2008 on the file of the Additional Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The said claim
petition was submitted by him seeking compensation
for the injuries sustained in a motor accident that
occurred on 16.03.2008.

¶23

2.According to the appellant, the accident
occurred when he was travelling as a passenger in a
bus driven by the 1st respondent. During such journey,
when it stopped at the bus stop, while he was getting
down through the front door, the bus was taken
forward in a rash and negligent manner by the 1st
respondent. Due to its impact, the appellant fell
down and the back wheel of the bus ran over his right
lower limb thereby causing serious injuries. The
appellant was an Office Assistant in a private
establishment with a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. He
was 20 years old at the time of the accident. It was
also contended that he sustained severe injuries

¶24

MACA No.59 OF 2013

¶25

¶26

which resulted in physical disablity. The claim
petition is submitted in such circumstances.

¶27

3.The 3rd respondent, the insurer of the bus
filed a written statement denying the negligence on
the part of the 1st respondent. However, they admitted
the coverage of the policy for the bus. The quantum
of compensation claimed was also objected to by them.

¶28

4.The appellant produced and marked Ext.A1 to
A12 to substantiate his contentions. No evidence was
adduced by the respondent. After the trial, the
Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the 1st respondent in driving the bus
and since it was insured with the 3rd respondent, they
were held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum
of compensation was fixed as Rs.3,61,936/- and the
said amount was directed to be deposited by the 3rd
respondent with interest at the rate of 9% per annum
from the date of petition till realisation. This
appeal is submitted in such circumstances seeking
enhancement of compensation.

¶29

MACA No.59 OF 2013

¶30

¶31

5.Heard Sri.Abraham K. John, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Sri.E.M.Joseph,
learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.

¶32

6.The only question that arises for
consideration is regarding the inadequacy of
compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant
pointed out that, the Tribunal awarded meagre amounts
under various heads, particularly under the head of
disability. It is seen from the records that, for the
purpose of assessing the compensation for disability,
the Tribunal took the monthly income of the appellant
as Rs.4,000/- as against the claim of Rs.5,000/-.
Considering the fact that this is an accident that
occurred in the year 2008, the monthly income of
Rs.4,000/- appears to be very low. It is to be noted
that, in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236] the
Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to take the monthly
income of an ordinary worker as Rs.4,500/- for the
year 2004. In such circumstances, the amount of

¶33

MACA No.59 OF 2013

¶34

¶35

Rs.5,000/- claimed by the appellant cannot be treated
as unreasonable, as the accident in this case was in
the year 2008. Therefore, the said amount is accepted
as the monthly income.

¶36

7.The Tribunal has already accepted the
percentage of disability as 7% by placing reliance
upon Ext.A12 Medical Report. Therefore, while
reassessing the compensation with the revised monthly
income, the amount would come to Rs.75,600/-
(5000x12x18x7/100). The amount already awarded by the
Tribunal is Rs.53,760/- and thus the additional
amount would come to Rs.21,840/-.

¶37

8. Consequent to the revision of monthly

¶38

income, the appellant would be entitled to some
additional amount under the head of loss of earnings.
The Tribunal awarded compensation under this head,
for a period of four months. The said period appears
to be reasonable and therefore a further sum of

¶39

Rs.4,000/- is awarded under the said head. The next
head which requires consideration is pain and

¶40

MACA No.59 OF 2013

¶41

6

¶42

suffering. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under
the same is Rs.30,000/-. The injuries suffered by the
appellant are mentioned in Ext.A3 which are as
follows:

¶43

1. Crush injury of right thigh;

¶44

2. Crush injury of right iliac region with loss

¶45

 of skin and subcutaneous tissue;

¶46

3. Deep lacerated wound over right iliac fossa;

¶47

4. Comminuted fracture shaft right femur mid

¶48

 1/3rd;

¶49

5. Type I open comminuted fracture right tibia;

¶50

6. Fracture right ilium;

¶51

7. Pain bleeding wounds over the right thigh,

¶52

 right leg.

¶53

9.The appellant had undergone inpatient

¶54

treatment for a period of 31 days. The nature of

¶55

injuries are very serious, considering that it
includes crush injuries as well. Therefore, I am of
the view that the amount awarded by the Tribunal
towards pain and suffering is on the lower side and

¶56

MACA No.59 OF 2013

¶57

7

¶58

accordingly a further sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded
under the said head. The amount awarded by the
Tribunal towards loss of amenities is Rs.18,000/-
which appears to be on the lower side. Considering
the nature of the injuries, the period of treatment
which he undergone and the disability arising
therefrom, I deem it appropriate to grant some
additional amount under this head. This is
particularly because, the said injuries and the
disabilities were suffered by him at the young age of
20 years. Therefore, a further sum of Rs.15,000/- is
awarded under the said head.

¶59

10.The learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that, he requires an enhancement of
compensation for disfiguration. It is seen that the
amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the said
head is Rs.25,000/-. The photographs of the appellant
were also made available for perusal which are
already on record before the Tribunal as Ext.A10. But
considering the nature of the injuries and also the

¶60

MACA No.59 OF 2013

¶61

¶62

fact that, the injuries were sustained on the right
thigh, I find that the amount awarded by the Tribunal
under this head is reasonable and no interference is
warranted.

¶63

In the result, the total additional compensation
is determined as Rs.55,840/- (Rupees Fifty Five
Thousand Eight Hundred and forty only) and the 3rd
respondent is directed to deposit the said amount
along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from
the date of petition till realisation with
proportionate cost.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶66

sms

Manu v. Nibu.M.Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manu v. Nibu.M.Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju V.C. Vs the Divisional Manager

Karunakaran Vs Managing Director , (Deleted)

The Manager Vs Pushpa.E.K.

T.Hassan Faisy Vs Dr.Hassan Thangal

C.M.Baburaj Vs N.G Manoj

Jessy Mathai Vs Kunjumon