Kerala High Court
Valsamma E.G vs Rohini T.R on 28 April, 2016
Author: C.K.Abdul Rehim
Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/19TH MAGHA, 1938
MACA.No. 2000 of 2016
-------------------------
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1048/2012 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL.,PERUMBAVOOR DATED 28-04-2016
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:-:
-------------------------
VALSAMMA E.G.,
AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.THANKAPPAN,
EDCHALIL, KEEZHILLAM P.O.,
PIN - 683 541, THAIKARACHIRANGARA,
RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SMT.K.R.DEEPA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:-:
----------------------------
1. ROHINI T.R.,
W/O.SADANANDAN, GOWRY SADANAM,
KEEZHILLAM P.O., PIN - 683 541,
RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE.
2. SYAMKUMAR,
S/O.SADANANDAN, GOWRY SADANAM,
KEEZHILLAM P.O., PIN - 683 541,
RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE.
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
XII/284-D, XII/285C,
VADAKKANTHIL TOWERS,
PRIVATE BUS STAND ROAD,
PERUMBAVOOR - 683 542.
R3 BY ADV. SMT.S.JAYASREE
R BY SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 08-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C.K. ABDUL REHIM & SHIRCY V.,JJ.
==============================
M.A.C.A. No. 2000 of 2016
==============================
Dated this the 8th day of February, 2017
JUDGMENT
Shircy V., J.
Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the injured/claimant, this appeal has been preferred by her for enhancement of compensation.
2. The appellant's case is that on 3.4.2010 at about 10.50 a.m. while she was travelling as pillion rider in a scooter bearing Reg.No.6769 through Aluva-Munnar Road due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the 2nd respondent she fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. She has claimed an amount of Rs. 8 lakhs as compensation, but the Tribunal has granted only an amount of Rs.4,50,522/-.
MACA 2000/2016 2
3. The accident as well as the insurance policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. So also the findings of the Tribunal regarding the negligence on the side of the 2nd respondent in riding the vehicle causing accident is not in dispute. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the amount awarded as compensation under different heads are on the lower side and she is entitled to get enhancement for the amount of compensation awarded. According to him, she was aged only 47 years at the time of the accident and was earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month as a lady engaged in the sale of lotion. It is pertinent to note that no reliable evidence was adduced to prove her occupation as well the income. So the Tribunal has fixed the notional income as Rs.5000/- for assessing the compensation to be awarded to her under the head of loss of earnings. It is to be noted that Ext.A5 is the wound certificate issued from the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode where she had undergone treatment immediately MACA 2000/2016 3 after the accident. Ext.A7 is the Discharge Summary Card. From Ext.A5 and A7 document it is revealed that she had sustained bifrontal EDH, diffuse brain edema, inter- hemispheric SAH, Traumatic SAH, left frontal SDH with pneumocephalus, right temporal contusion and right frontal contusion. She had undergone treatment as an inpatient from 3.4.2012 to 2.5.2012. She had to spent considerable amount for the treatment undergone by her. So also even though she had sustained permanent disability, no amount has been granted as compensation under that head. Of course, no certificate was available to assess her disability and in the appeal she has been referred to the Medical Board where her disability was assessed as 10%. Taking into consideration of all these facts, the compensation awarded to the appellant has to be re-assessed and re- worked as follows: She has undergone treatment on various dates, but only an amount of Rs.2500/- has been granted as compensation for transportation expenses. So MACA 2000/2016 4 we think that the said amount has to be enhanced as Rs.5,000/- which would entitle her to get a further amount of Rs.2500/- on that head. As compensation for extra nourishment an amount of Rs.2000/- has been granted by the Tribunal. We think that the said amount is also on the lower side. So we enhance it as Rs.5000/- under that head which would entitle the appellant to get a further amount of Rs.3,000/-. As mentioned earlier, no amount has been granted as compensation for disability, even though she sustained 10% disability. The appellant is a lady aged 47 years and the correct multiplier to be adopted is 13. Hence, we grant an amount of Rs.78,000/-(5000x12x13x10/100)as compensation for disability sustained by her. This Court do not find any ground warranting interference with respect to the amount of compensation awarded under any other heads.
4. Thus the appellant is entitled for a total enhancement of Rs.83,500/-. Therefore the above appeal is MACA 2000/2016 5 hereby allowed by enhancing the total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal by a further sum of Rs.83,500/-(Rupees eighty three thousand and five hundred only). The said amount will carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation. The 3rd respondent/ Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within a period of two months from today.
If such deposit is made, the appellant is at liberty to approach the Tribunal seeking withdrawal of the amount. If any such application is filed, the Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders considering the question of permitting withdrawal.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE Sd/-
SHIRCY V.
JUDGE
ks. True copy
P.S. (Hr.Gr.)To Judge
MACA 2000/2016 6