Kerala High Court
Unknown vs By Advs.Sri.T.K.Koshy on 20 June, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1940
MACA.No. 1837 of 2012
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 441/2005 of MACT,PATHANAMTHITTA DATED
20-06-2012
APPELLANT/PETITIONER
K.V.RAJAPPAN PILLAI
KALAKATTU HOUSE, CHETHACKAL P.O.,RANNY
BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.KOSHY
SMT.V.V.RISANI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
*1. N.K.MUHAMMED SHERIEF
S/O.NOORDINKUNJU,ATHICHAPPURAM HOUSE, ELIPPAKULAM
P.O.,PALLICKAL, MAVALIKKARA-690501 (DELETED)
*2. MOHANAN R
S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, SREENILAYAM VEEDU,
PEROORKARAYIMA,THAMARAKULAM P.O.,CHARUMMOODU -690530,(DELETED)
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD, KANNEL COMPLEX,
KAYAMKULAM-690502
(* R1 AND R2 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS
PER ORDER DATED 23.02.2017 IN I.A NO.587/17)
R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-06-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BNG
P.D.RAJAN, J
-------------------
M.A.C.A No.1837 of 2012
---------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of June, 2018
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award in OP(MV) No.441/2005 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. The appellant sustained serious injuries in a motor accident on 01.07.2003, while he was travelling in a bus KLA 9601 and the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,56,200/-. Being aggrieved by that, the injured preferred this appeal.
2. The accident was not disputed by the respondents in the lower court. It is admitted fact that the injured was passenger in KLA 9601 along Kaippattoor - Pathanamthitta public road, when he reached in front of the Pandakasala Babu's house, another vehicle KL-7 J 4876 driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the appellant's vehicle. As a result, he sustained serious injuries. The driver and owner of the vehicle were set ex- parte. The insurer admitted the insurance of the vehicle. The claimant did not adduce any oral evidence, but his M.A.C.A No.1837 of 2012 -2- documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A9.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that appellant sustained loss of vision to both eyes and 100% disability. The learned Tribunal took only 50% disability without referring the injured to another Medical Board. He was a timber business man and was getting Rs.8,000/- per month and the Tribunal took only Rs.3,000/-. Hence, the appellant is entitled to get just amount as compensation.
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 M.A.C.A No.1837 of 2012 -3- 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