Allowed

Saijan Thomas, v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,Chalakudy

Kerala HC18 Jun 2024MACA/714/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant appealed against inadequate compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after sustaining serious injuries as a pillion rider in a motorcycle accident. The court enhanced notional income to Rs.12,500/- per month and increased compensation under pain and suffering, permanent disability, and loss of amenities.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.65,500/- with interest @8% per annum from date of petition till realization and proportionate costs; deposit within two months.

Saijan Thomas, Vs United India Insurance… — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1946

¶3

MACA NO. 714 OF 2019

¶4

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 26.07.2018 IN O.P(MV) NO.317 OF 2016 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA

¶5

APPELLANT/PETITIONER :-

¶6

SAIJAN THOMAS, AGED 27 YEARS
S/O.THOMAS, ELANJIKKAL HOUSE, RESIDING AT
CHAIPPINKUZHY DESOM, NEAR THANIKKA MATHAI BUS STOP,
KUTTICHIRA VILLAGE, CHAIPPINKUZHY P.O.,
CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADVS.
EBIN GOPURAN
JOSEPH GOPURAN

¶8

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT :-

¶9

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,CHALAKUDY
INSURER KL-45/E 3056 MOTORCYCLE.

¶10

BY ADVS.
SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD
SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY

¶11

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD ON
18.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

¶13

MACA NO. 714 OF 2019

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.317 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The respondent herein is the 3^rd respondent before the tribunal.

¶16

The case of the appellant/claimant was that on 19.05.2015 at 06.30 am, while he was riding as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-45/E 3056 driven by the 2^nd respondent through Chaipinkuzhy-Kuttichira public road, a dog suddenly cut across the road and when the 2^nd respondent turned the vehicle, the appellant was thrown away, whereby he sustained serious injuries. The appellant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.16,91,000/-.

¶17

The respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, the documentary evidence consists of Exts.A1 to A8 on the side of the

¶18

MACA NO. 714 OF 2019

¶19

3

¶20

appellant/claimant and Ext.B1 was adduced by the respondents. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of 3,45,200/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

¶22

The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads;

¶23

Notional Income :- The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is possessing licence to drive heavy vehicle and is a qualified mechanic and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month. But, the tribunal has taken his monthly income as Rs.10,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant was a holder of a certificate of automobile engineering as well as Ext.A8 driving

¶24

¶25

MACA NO. 714 OF 2019

¶26

licence to drive heavy-duty vehicles. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of Apex Court in Manusha Sreekumar and Others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd [2022 KHC

¶27

7106] , wherein it was held that when minimum wages for a skilled worker like ‘driver’ is shown as Rs.15,600/- per month, the High Court erred in fixing income of the deceased in that case at Rs.10,000/- and the Apex Court fixed the notional income in that case as shown in the minimum wages.

¶28

In this case, it is seen that, at the time of evidence, the claimant did not mount the box, and it is stated in the order of the tribunal that he was employed at gulf. Moreover, though it was claimed that he was earning Rs.18,000/- per month and was possessing licence to drive heavy vehicle and is a qualified mechanic, no proper evidence, either documentary or oral, was adduced by the appellant to prove his monthly income. However, the tribunal, on consideration of the entire issue, awarded and took an amount of Rs.10,000/- as his monthly income. On a consideration of the issue, it is seen that the certificate of automobile engineering was obtained by the claimant in the year 2007 and the driving licence was obtained

¶29

MACA NO. 714 OF 2019

¶30

¶31

in the year 2009. However, the appellant/claimant could not produce any piece of evidence or documents to prove his avocation or his monthly income. However, even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951], the tribunal ought to have taken Rs.10,000/- as his monthly income. Considering the fact that the appellant had a heavy duty licence to drive heavy duty vehicles, I feel that an amount of Rs.2,500/- more can be added to his income. Thus, the income i s re-f i xed at Rs.12,500/-.

¶32

Pain and sufering : f - Under this head, the appellant claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, but the tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.40,000/-. The following are the injuries sustained by the appellant as a consequence of the accident :

¶33

(I) fracture on his left femur.

¶34

(ii) suf f ered femur bone

¶35

(iii) Grade III splenic injury

¶36

(iv) Grade II kidney injury

¶37

Considering the injuries sustained by the appellant, I am

¶38

MACA NO. 714 OF 2019

¶39

¶40

of the opinion that an additional amount of Rs.20,000/- more can be granted towards pain and suffering.

¶41

Compensation for permanent disability :- The learned counsel for the appellant is satisfied with the percentage of disability calculated by the tribunal. However, since the monthly income has been enhanced to Rs.12,500/-, the compensation for permanent disability has to be recalculated as Rs.1,27,500/- (12,500x12x17x5/100). The tribunal has awarded Rs.1,02,000/-. Thus, there will be an additional amount of Rs.25,500/- under the said head.

¶42

Loss of amenities :- An amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was claimed by the claimant under the afore head but the tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.25,000/-. It is seen from the award and documents handed over to me that the appellant had undergone seven days’ inpatient treatment and also suffered a splenic injury as well as kidney injuries and could not go for work for six months. Hence, I am of the opinion that the amount of compensation under the said head can be enhanced by awarding a further amount of Rs.20,000/-. Thus, the total compensation payable under the said head would be

¶43

MACA NO. 714 OF 2019

¶44

¶45

Rs.45,000/-, entitling the appellant to get an additional amount

¶46

of Rs.20,000/- .

¶47

Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified

¶48

as follows:

¶49

Sl. No.	Head of Claim	Amount claimed	Amount awarded by the tribunal	Modified in appeal	Total compensation
1	Loss of earnings	2,16,000	60,000	(not modified)	60,000
2	Transportation expenses	20,000	2,500	(not modified)	2,500
3	Extra nourishment	50,000	1,000	(not modified)	1,000
4	Damage to clothings	5,000	1,000	(not modified)	1,000
5	Attendant expenses	50,000	2,100	(not modified)	2,100
6	Medical expenses	1,50,000	1,11,600	(not modified)	1,11,600
7	Pain and suffering	1,00,000	40,000	20,000	60,000
8	Compensation for permanent disability and loss of earning power	7,00,000	1,02,000	25,500	1,27,500
9	Loss of amenities	2,00,000	25,000	20,000	45,000
10	Compensation for disfigurement	50,000	Nil	Nil	Nil
11	Compensation for anticipated medical expenses	1,00,000	Nil	Nil	Nil
12	Compensation for mental dejection and unhappiness in life	50,000	Nil	Nil	Nil
	TOTAL	16,91,000	3,45,200	65,500	4,10,700

¶50

¶51

MACA NO. 714 OF 2019

¶52

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the appellant/claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.65,500/- (Rupees sixty five thousand five hundred only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount together with interest and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The claimant shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, ADHAAR Card and bank details before the respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellant at the earliest in accordance with law.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

SMA

Saijan Thomas, v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,Chalakudy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saijan Thomas, v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,Chalakudy

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

Raju.K.J Vs Deepak.T.v

Rovins Vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd

Saleena Vs Babu.K.P.

Rainy Jaison Vs the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Bincy, Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Johny Vs R.Anbalagan