Kerala High Court
A.T.Sasi vs M.Suresh Babu on 16 July, 2012
Author: Pius C. Kuriakose
Bench: Pius C.Kuriakose, A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
&
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2012/25TH ASHADHA 1934
MACA.No.1689 of 2008 (F)
------------------------------
OPMV.2185/2001 of M.A.C.T.,KOZHIKODE
-------
APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT::
-------------------------------
A.T.SASI, S/O.A.T.KUTTAYI,
AGED 37 YEARS, KODAKKALLU PARAMBA
FEROKE COLLEGE POST, KOZHIKKODE.
BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS::
---------------------------------------
1. M.SURESH BABU, S/O.SIVADASAN,
MANKUZHIYIL HOUSE, FEROKE POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, POOTHERI BUILDINGS, FEROKE
KOZHIKKODE.
BY ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
M. A. C. A No.1689 of 2008
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2012
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J A collection agent in an Urban Co-operative Bank, the appellant sustained fracture of left femur in a road traffic accident in which he was thrown away from an autorickshaw in which he was travelling. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the autorickshaw which was duly insured with the second respondent Insurance Company. The appellant complains that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal did not award him adequate compensation for the injuries which is sustained in the road traffic accident. According to him, there is gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded.
2. We have heard the submissions of Smt.K.V.Rashmi, the learned counsel for the appellant and also those of M. A. C. A No.1689 of 2008 -2- Sri.P.M.M.Najeeb Khan, the learned Standing Counsel for the contesting Insurance Company.
3. The submission of Smt.Rashmi was that there is gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal whereas the submission of Sri.Najeeb Khan was that there is no such inadequacy.
4. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have very carefully read through the impugned award. We are in agreement with Smt.Rashmi that there is some inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant.
5. Having seen the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, we are of the view that the sum of ` 15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is inadequate and we therefore award to the appellant ` 5,000/- more.
6. We are surprised to find that the learned Tribunal did not award any compensation to the appellant towards loss of amenities. As we are convinced that on account of the M. A. C. A No.1689 of 2008 -3- injuries the appellant was deprived of all the amenities and pleasures of life during the period of treatment and convalescence and even for some time thereafter, we award to the appellant ` 15,000/- more towards loss of amenities.
7. The learned Tribunal has awarded a global sum of ` 3,000/- towards hospitalisation and incidental charges. We reckon that amount as award towards charges other than bystander's expenses. Towards bystander's expenses, we award to the appellant a separate amount of ` 4,200/-.
8. The learned Tribunal adopted the monthly income of the appellant to be ` 1,500/- per mensem notionally. We are of the view that the appellant's notional income should have been taken as ` 2,500/-. When the loss of income is calculated adopting the higher monthly income it will be seen that the appellant is entitled for a sum of ` 10,500/- more and we award that amount to the appellant.
9. The learned Tribunal relied on a disability certificate which was to the effect that the appellant suffered a permanent partial disability of 3%. A sum of ` 9,180/- was M. A. C. A No.1689 of 2008 -4- awarded as disability compensation treating the monthly income of the appellant to be ` 1,200/-. As we have revised the monthly income the disability compensation will also increase. We award to the appellant ` 6,120/- more towards disability compensation.
10. Thus in all the appellant is entitled to get a sum of ` 40,820/- over and above what is awarded by the learned Tribunal. This amount will carry interest at the same rate as is awarded by the learned Tribunal.
11. The appeal is allowed. The impugned award is modified as above.
Sd/-
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/-
A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE kns/-
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE M. A. C. A No.1689 of 2008 -5-