Kerala High Court
Unknown vs By Advs.Sri.R.Padmakumar on 20 April, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2018 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1940
MACA.No. 2062 of 2012
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1031/2002 of MACT, MAVELIKKARA DATED
20-04-2012
APPELLANT/PETITIONER
SUDHAKARAN
S/O.KARUNAKARAN, JAIKISH BHAVAN, CHUNAKKARA NADUVIL,
CHUNAKKARA NADUVIL, CHUNAKKARA, MAVELIKKARA.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.PADMAKUMAR
SRI.P.ARAVIND
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. BAIJU G.
S/O.GOPI, KARUKAYIL HOUSE, PALLIPPAD, HARIPAD, PIN-690514.
2. C.A. NIZAR
KUNNUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, AVOLY PANCHAYATH,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-696661.
3. THE MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE,
KAYAMKULAM-690502.
R33 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
R3 BY ADV. SMT.K.S.SANTHI
R3 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
R BY SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-07-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BNG
P.D.RAJAN, J
-------------------
M.A.C.A No.2062 of 2012
---------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2018
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award in O.P. (MV)No. 1031/2002 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikara by the injured. The appellant sustained injuries in a motor accident on 26.01.2002 and the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,27,000/- with 7.5% interest and proportionate cost. Being aggrieved by that, the injured preferred this appeal.
2. The claimant's case in the lower court was that on 26.01.2002, he was driving a car KL-4G-3314 through Mankamkuzhy - Charummood public road, when he reached at south of Chunakkara Panchayath Office junction, a bus KL-7- J/9855 driven in a rash and negligent manner hit against the car, as a result, the appellant and other passengers in the car sustained injuries and one passenger died. Immediately, he was removed to hospital. The driver and owner were set ex- parte in the lower court. The insurer admitted the insurance of the vehicle. The claimant's evidence consist of oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence consist of Exts.A1 to A22. M.A.C.A No.2062 of 2012 -2- The disability certificate was marked as Ext.X1. Respondents examined DW1 and DW2. The learned Tribunal awarded the following amount as compensation.
1. Loss of earnings Rs.18,000/-
2. Loss of earnings (partial) Not allowed
3. Medical and miscellaneous expenses Rs.69,800/-
4. Bystander's expenses Rs.3,200/-
5. Transportation charges Rs.1,050/-
6. Extra nourishment Rs.3,000/-
7. Damage to clothing, etc Not allowed
9. Pain and sufferings Rs.30,000/-
10. Loss of consortium ---
11. Loss of marriage prospectus ----
12. Loss of earning power ----
13. Disability income Rs.90,000/-
14. Loss / reduction in earning capacity -----
15. Loss of amenities and convenience etc Rs.10,000/-
16. Any other heads (review statement) Rs.2,000/-
Total Rs.2,27,050/-
Rounded to Rs.2,27,100/-
3. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant contended that the injured is a driver by profession and he sustained injuries while driving a car. He sustained M.A.C.A No.2062 of 2012 -3- permanent disability of 76%, but the learned Tribunal took only 25% for assessing the disability compensation. The appellant was getting Rs.7,500/- per month from his occupation and the learned Tribunal took only Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income and awarded a meagre amount.
4. In injury cases the damages are to be assessed separately as pecuniary and special damages. The object is to compensate injury so far as money can compensate. When compensation is to be awarded for pain, suffering and loss of amenities in life, special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account. Amount of compensation for non- pecuniary loss is not easy to determine, but award must reflect that different circumstances have been taken into consideration. Hence, the multiplier method has to be followed to calculate pecuniary loss upon annual basis. In Yadava Kumar v. D.M. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010 (8) SCALE 567) Apex Court reiterated the principle in relation to the assessment of damages for personal injuries cases as follows:
b