Kerala High Court
Akhila vs Raju @ Maina on 29 October, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1940
MACA.NO. 1468 OF 2013
AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.1200/2010 OF THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM DATED 29-10-2012
------------------------------
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER :
-------------------------
AKHILA, D/O. JAYAPRAKASH,
KODIYAMKUNNEL HOUSE, ELENJI VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.KOSHY
SMT.V.V.RISANI
SRI.ABE RAJAN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
--------------------------------
1. RAJU @ MAINA,
S/O. VARGHESE, NARAKATHINKAL HOUSE,
KALAMBOOR KARA,
PIRAVOM VILLAGE, PIN-686664.
2. GEORGE M.C., (DELETED)
MANJAMATTATHIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN-686664.
* 2ND RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE
APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 10.07.2017 IN I.A. NO.2322 OF 2017.
3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686661.
R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.BABU
BY ADV.SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-03-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
NS
P.D. RAJAN, J.
------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.1468 of 2013
----------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2018
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award in O.P. (M.V.) No.1200 of 2010 of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam by the injured. Appellant sustained injuries in a motor accident and the learned tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.6,51,887/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Seven only) as compensation. The accident on 10.11.2009 was not disputed by the respondents in the lower court. The appellant did not adduce any oral evidence but her documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A23 and the disability certificate was marked as Ext.C1. Respondents have no dispute with regard to the disability. Being aggrieved by the award, injured preferred this appeal.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the appellant was a tailor by profession and was getting an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month, but the learned tribunal took Rs.3,000/- only for calculating compensation, which is a meagre one.
M.A.C.A. No.1468 of 2013 2
3. While awarding compensation 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 amenity in life, special circumstances of 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. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get just amount as compensation.
4. 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 and held as follows:
b