Kerala High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Gopalan on 27 July, 2015
Author: P.R. Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Anil K.Narendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/4TH PHALGUNA, 1937
MACA.No. 414 of 2016 ()
------------------------
(AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 330/2013 of PRL. M.A.C.T.,KOZHIKODE DATED
27-07-2015)
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
------------------------
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER
REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.SMT.K.S.SANTHI
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:
----------------------------
GOPALAN, AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.PARAYAN, MEDAKKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, KUNNATHARA P.O.
KOZHIKODE.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
23-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.
..............................................................................
C.M. Application No.526 OF 2016
&
M.A.C.A.No.414 OF 2016
.........................................................................
Dated this the 23rd February, 2016
JUDGMENT
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.
The appeal is filed by the insurer, with a petition to condone the delay of 102 days in filing the same. Before considering whether any notice has to be issued and delay is to be condoned, we find it appropriate to go through the merit as well. Accordingly, heard Mr. George Cherian, the learned Sr. Counsel in detail.
2. The Insurance company is before this Court challenging the correctness and sustainability of the award passed by the Tribunal granting a total compensation of Rs.8,95,000/- in respect of serious injuries sustained by the respondent herein in a road traffic accident, resulting in permanent disability to an extent of 85% as certified by the Medical Board.
3. On 04.08.2012, the respondent was proceeding along the road as a pedestrian . While so, he was knocked down by a lorry C.M. Application No.526 OF 2016 & M.A.C.A.No.414 OF 2016 2 bearing No.KL.11.AD/641, owned, driven and insured by respondents 1 to 3 before the Tribunal. The serious injuries caused to the respondent were sought to be compensated by filing claim petition. The owner and driver of the vehicle did not choose to contest the case and were set ex parte. The claim was resisted by the appellant Insurance Company on general grounds as no violation of statutory/policy condition was ever pointed out. The only evidence adduced before the Tribunal consists of Exts. A1 to A11 and Ext.C1 (marked as Court exhibit). Based on the materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident was solely because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and proceeded to fix compensation accordingly.
4. Even though there was a claim for the respondent that he was earning a monthly income of Rs.25000/- as a general worker, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, no evidence was adduced in this regard. It is also seen that nobody from the part of the claimant did choose to mount the box. C.M. Application No.526 OF 2016 & M.A.C.A.No.414 OF 2016 3
5. Met with the situation, the Tribunal, taking note of the overall facts and circumstances, reckoned Rs.5000/- as monthly income and awarded nine months' earning as loss of income, besides amounts under other heads, thus fixing the total compensation as Rs.895000/-. This in turn is sought to be challenged by the Insurance Company in the present appeal, contending that it is much on the higher side.
6. On going through the facts and figures, it is seen that the the respondent has sustained serious head injuries, the particulars of which are discernible from the proceedings of the Medical Board dated 01.01.2015. The relevant portion is extracted below:
"Impaired sensorium-disoriented in time and place; severe memory deficit and apathetic mood. Needs total assistance for self care, feeding and toileting amounts 60% disability. Bladder control is defective with frequent incontinence- 60% disability. Total neurological disability - 80%.Eighty percentage. "
It is on the basis of the above factual aspects, the Board fixed the total extent of disability as 85%. This Court finds no reason C.M. Application No.526 OF 2016 & M.A.C.A.No.414 OF 2016 4 to take any deviation from the course pursued by the Medical Board/expert body in assessing the extent of disability. Since the accident was in the year 2012, and since the respondent was aged about 40 years as on the date of the accident; and further since the injuries have resulted in permanent disability to the tune of 85%, the calculation made by the Tribunal with regard to loss of income due to disability reckoning the multiplier of 15, hence, calls for no interference.
7. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads as given in paragraph '7' are extracted below:
Head Amount
(Rs.)
Loss of earnings due to the accident 45000
Transport to hospital 2000
Hospitalization for 41 days 32800
Medical expenses 11300
Future treatment 3770
Pain and sufferings 25000
Loss of amenities 10000
Loss of income due to disability 765000
C.M. Application No.526 OF 2016 &
M.A.C.A.No.414 OF 2016
5
Head Amount
(Rs.)
Total 894870 (Rounded
to Rs.895000)
8. It is seen that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.32800/- as compensation for hospitalization for 41 days, reckoning Rs.800/- per day as charges payable to the bystander. The said rate is on the higher side. But it is seen that despite the higher extent of injuries and adverse consequences resulted, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10000/- towards loss of amenities, which is on the lower side. Hence no interference is required in respect of the minor heads, if at all any interference is possible referring to the extent of hospitalization, bystander's expense and such other incidental charges. We find no tenable ground to interfere with the verdict passed by the Tribunal. The appeal fails.
In the above circumstance, we find no reason to condone the delay, more so since there is no merit . Accordingly, both the petition to condone the delay as well as the appeal are dismissed C.M. Application No.526 OF 2016 & M.A.C.A.No.414 OF 2016 6 as devoid of any merit. The appellant/Insurance company is given one month's time to satisfy the due amount.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE lk