Kerala High Court
C.K. Thampi vs K. Jayasree on 31 May, 2007
Author: S.Siri Jagan
Bench: S.Siri Jagan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935
MACA.No. 413 of 2008 (A)
-------------------------
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 381/2000 of IST ADDL.M.A.C.T, KOZHIKODE,
DATED 31-05-2007
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER::
--------------------------
C.K. THAMPI, S/O. KURIAN,
AGED 45 YEARS, VILANHERI HOUSE, GURUVAYOORAPPAN
COLLEGE POST, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS::
---------------------------
1. K. JAYASREE, D/O. MADHAVAN NAIR,
RESIDING AT SREEVALSAM, CALICUT ROAD, MANJERI
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, KORAMBAYIL ARCADE, MANJERI
MALAPPURAM.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
S. Siri Jagan & K. Ramakrishnan, JJ.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
M.A.C.A. No. 413 of 2008
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 27th day of November, 2013.
J U D G M E N T
Ramakrishnan, J.
The claimant in O.P.(MV) No. 381/2000 on the files of the 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, is the appellant herein. The appellant filed the application for compensation for the injuries and consequential disabilities sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver and awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,11,700/- on various heads as follows:
Pain and suffering Rs. 26,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 35,950/- Loss of amenities in life Rs. 10,000/- Transportation and extra nourishment etc. Rs. 1,000/- Bystander's expenses Rs. 650/- Compensation for disability Rs. 35,100/- Loss of earning Rs. 3,000/- Total Rs. 1,11,700/-
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has come before this Court with the above appeal.
2. Since the insurance liability is admitted, further notice to the 1st respondent in the appeal is dispensed with. M.A.C.A. No. 413 of 2008 -: 2 :-
3. Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for the Insurance Company.
4. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was aged 45 years and a businessman by profession and getting Rs. 4,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has arbitrarily fixed the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 1,500/- which is very low. Further, 13% disability was certified and the amounts awarded under the heads `loss of earning capacity, loss of amenities in life, pain and suffering, loss of earnings' etc., are also on the lower side. So, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is entitled to enhancement on all heads.
5. On the other hand, counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the multiplier applicable to the age group of 45 is 14, but the Tribunal has adopted 15 as multiplier, which is wrong. So, there is no necessity to interfere with the amount awarded by the Tribunal.
6. We have considered rival contentions of both parties in detail.
7. Though the appellant had a case that he is a businessman and getting a monthly income of Rs.4,000/- at the time of accident, he had not produced any document to prove the same. Therefore, under the circumstances , the Tribunal cannot be faulted in notionally fixing his income as Rs. 1,500/-. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
7. The appellant suffered comminuted fracture of M.A.C.A. No. 413 of 2008 -: 3 :- both bones along with other injuries. He was treated as in- patient for 13 days. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, he may not be able to work at least for four months instead of two months taken by the Tribunal. Therefore, we award Rs. 6,000/- under the head `loss of earnings, instead of Rs.3,000/- fixed by the Tribunal. Though the multiplier taken is on the higher side, we feel that considering the nature of injury sustained, the amount awarded under the head `loss of earning capacity' appears to be just and reasonable and we are not inclined to interfere with the same.
8. The appellant suffered 13% permanent disability But the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 10,000/- under the head `loss of amenities' He was aged 45 at the time of accident and he will have to be with this difficulty for the remaining period of his life as well. So, considering these aspects, we feel that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- appears to be on the lower side and we enhance the same to Rs. 20,000/-. In spite of persuasive arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant for enhancement on other heads, we are not inclined to enhance any amounts under other heads as the amounts awarded are just and reasonable.
In all, the appellant will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 13,000/- over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal, which the 2nd respondent Insurance Company shall deposit with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition till payment. M.A.C.A. No. 413 of 2008 -: 4 :- Two months time is granted to the Insurance Company to deposit the amount.
With the above modification of the impugned award of the Tribunal, this appeal is disposed of.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Sd/- K. Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.