Kerala High Court
N.P.Abdullakoya vs Sudeer on 17 May, 2010
Author: C.T.Ravikumar
Bench: C.T.Ravikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2016/20TH VAISAKHA 1938
MACA.No. 941 of 2011 ( )
-------------------------
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1408/2006 of M.A.C.T., KOZHIKODE
DATED 17-05-2010
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER IN OP(MV):
------------------------------------------
N.P.ABDULLAKOYA
S/O.SAIDALI, PUTHIYANGADI, PALLIKANDY,
HOUSE NO.25, P.O.PAVANGAD, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADVS.SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN
SMT.P.Y.SHEHEERA
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV):
------------------------------------------------
1. SUDEER, S/O.DARMAJAN
MANJAMKUZHI HOUSE, P.O.NENMENI
S.BATHERY, WYNAD-673121
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, NOOR COMPLEX, P.B.NO.811,
MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673001
R2 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 20-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C.T. RAVIKUMAR
&
K. P. JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.
==========================
M.A.C.A. No.941 OF 2011
==========================
Dated this the 20th day of May, 2016
JUDGMENT
Jyothindranath, J.
This appeal is filed by the injured-claimant in O.P.(MV). No.1408 of 2006 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The challenge is against award dated 17.05.2010, made therein.
2.The case of the appellant is that on 25.08.2005 at about 10 p.m., while he was standing on the side of Mavoor Road, in front of Sagar Hotel, a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-12A-5590 came and knocked him down and he sustained grievous injuries. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle, the appellant herein filed the above referred claim petition for M.A.C.A.941/2011 2 an amount of `1,00,000/- before the Tribunal arraying the RC owner of the vehicle as respondent No.1 and the insurance company as respondent No.2. The Tribunal awarded a sum of `50,385/-. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal preferred.
3.When the appeal came up for hearing, the counsel appearing for the appellant submitted before us that the insurance company was exonerated by the Tribunal on the ground that, at the relevant point of time, the vehicle was not insured with the company. It is also submitted before us that the appellant was a Head load worker by profession and the Tribunal considered only `2,500/- as his monthly income for calculation purposes. It is also submitted that on other heads also, only inadequate compensation was awarded by the Tribunal.
4.We heard the counsel for the insurance company. The counsel submitted before us that there was no insurance policy for the vehicle and the company was exonerated. There is nothing to interfere with the said finding.
M.A.C.A.941/2011 3
5.The factual facts relevant for deciding this appeal are as follows:-
Even though on various heads the appellant claimed a total amount of `2,66,000/-, the claim was limited to `1,00,000/-. The accident occurred on 25.08.2005 at 10 p.m. The vehicle involved is a motor cycle. Even though notice was sent to the first respondent, the owner-cum-rider of the vehicle, there is no appearance before this Court. After going through the award, we feel that the monthly income of the appellant/claimant considered by the Tribunal is on a lower side. As per the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], it can be seen that the Apex Court considered an income of `4,500/- in the case of a coolie who met with an accident in the year 2004. Thus, it will only be just and proper to consider at least `4,500/- as the monthly income of the appellant for calculation purposes. Even though the claimant was treated as inpatient for 37 M.A.C.A.941/2011 4 days, only a sum of `3,700/- is seen awarded towards bystanders expenses. We are of the opinion that, at least `200/- should have been taken towards expenses of bystander, for a day. When monthly income is considered as `4,500/-, on the head of loss of earning, the compensation awarded is inadequate. Thus, the compensation awarded is re-assessed by granting additional amounts as follows:-
Heads of claims Amount Amount Amount
claimed allowed enhanced
(in Rupees) (in Rupees) (in Rupees)
Transportation to hospital 3000 300 700
Extra nourishment 2000 300 nil
Treatment expenses 80000 4085 nil
Bystanders expenses nil 3700 3700
Loss of earning 40000 5000 4000
Pain and suffering 30000 10000 nil
Permanent disability 21600
(4500x12x50x
6/100=48600-
80000 27000 27000)
Total 266000 30000
limited to =====
1,00,000 50385
M.A.C.A.941/2011 5
The total additional compensation awarded will come to `30,000/-. Thus, it is held that the appellant/petitioner will be entitled for an enhanced amount of `30,000/- over and above the compensation already awarded. The first respondent is directed to pay the amount within three months of this judgment. Additional compensation will bear interest on the very same rate awarded by the Tribunal, i.e., 7%, from the date of the petition till realisation. There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) Sd/-
K. P. JYOTHINDRANATH
(JUDGE)
spc/
M.A.C.A.941/2011 6
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
M.A.C.A.941/2011 7
JUDGMENT
September,2010
M.A.C.A.941/2011 8