Kerala High Court
P.V. Remani vs C.J. Sunny on 16 April, 2007
Author: S.Siri Jagan
Bench: S.Siri Jagan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/26TH POUSHA, 1935
MACA.No. 296 of 2008 ( )
-------------------------
(THE AWARD IN OP(MV).NO. 3493/1999 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM DATED 16-04-2007)
------------------------------
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
----------------------------------------
P.V. REMANI, AGED 52 YEARS,
DAUGHTER OF LATE VAVA, PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE,
PERUMBALAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
SMT.K.N.RAJANI
SMT.MANJUSHA MOHANDAS
SMT.ANILA PETER
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
----------------------------------------------------
1. C.J. SUNNY, S/O.JOSEPH, EDATHIL HOUSE,
THALAYAZHAM P.O., KOTTAYAM.
* 2. P.S. SHAJI, S/O.SADANANDAN,
VIDYA BHAVAN, NEAR SNDP OFFICE, KOTHAVARA DESOM,
THALAYAZHAM VILLAGE, VAIKKOM TLUK. (DELETED)
3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
STATUE JUNCTION, TRIPUNITHURA.
*RESPONDENT NO.2 DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE
APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 16/12/2013 IN IA.NO.3400/2013 IN
MACA.NO.296/2008
R3 BY ADV. SRI.E.M.JOSEPH
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 16-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
==================
M.A.C.A.No. 296 of 2008
==================
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2014
J U D G M E N T
S.Siri Jagan, J.:
The appellant is the claimant in O.P(M.V.).No.3493/2009 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. She suffered injuries in an accident caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle owned and driven by respondents 1 and 2 and insured with the 3rd respondent. She filed the O.P. claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by her in the accident. The Tribunal, after finding negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, awarded compensation under various heads as follows:
Amount Head of claim awarded ` 1 Transportation, hospitalisation, attendant expenses, extra nourishment and damage to clothings 6,000.00 2 Medical expenses 830.00 3 Loss of earnings 19,500.00 4 Pain and suffering 35,000.00 5 Disability and loss of earning power 162,000.00 6 For discomforts, amenities & inconveniences 15,000.00 7 For future medical expenses 5,000.00 8 For loss of expected future happy life 10,000.00 Total 2,53,330.00 Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhanced compensation.
m.a.c.a.296/08 - : 2 :-
2. The contention of the appellant is mainly regarding the income fixed for the appellant by the Tribunal. According to the appellant, she was engaged in the work of peeling prawns, from which, she was earning a monthly income of ` 4,500/-. The accident was on 4.11.1999. At that time, she was 44 years old.
But the Tribunal fixed only a notional income of ` 1,500/-, which is palpably low is the contention raised. Secondly, it is contended that although she suffered amputation of her one leg above knee, the Tribunal awarded only ` 15,000/- towards loss of amenities in life, which is also on the lower side. The appellant seeks enhancement under the other heads also.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurance company points out that in 1999, in the absence of any other evidence, the Tribunal could not have fixed a higher notional income. Secondly, the learned counsel submits that apart from ` 15,000/- for loss of amenities in life, the Tribunal has awarded a further amount of ` 10,000/- for loss of expected future happy life, which also comes under the head, 'loss of amenities'. Consequently, the compensation awarded for loss of amenities is just and proper is the contention raised. Lastly, it is pointed out that the Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 15, whereas, going by the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla m.a.c.a.296/08 - : 3 :-
Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), the proper multiplier for a 44 year old person, which the appellant was at the time of accident, is only 14.
5. We have considered the rival contentions in detail.
6. The appellant did not adduce any evidence to prove her income. She did not even go to the box. Even then, we are of opinion that in 1999, a lady engaged in the work of peeling prawns would have been able to earn at least ` 2,000/- per month as income. Accordingly, we re-fix the notional monthly income of the appellant as ` 2,000/- instead of ` 1,500/- fixed by the Tribunal. Consequently, for thirteen months, she would be entitled to additional compensation of ` 6,500/- under the head, 'loss of earnings'. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the insurance company, the multiplier for a 44 year old person is 14 as per the decision in Sarla Verma's case (supra).
If the compensation for loss of earning power is re-calculated on that basis, the same would come to ` 2,01,600/- instead of ` 1,62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The difference would be ` 39,600/-. Although for loss of amenities and for loss of expected future happy life together, the Tribunal has awarded only ` 25,000/-, we are of opinion that, for loss of one leg and 60% permanent disability, the same is on the lower side as far as loss m.a.c.a.296/08 - : 4 :-
of amenities is concerned. She would find it very difficult to do even her daily chores. Therefore, we are inclined to award ` 25,000/- more towards compensation for loss of amenities in life. Despite the persuasive arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, we are unable to persuade ourselves to enhance compensation under the other heads. Adding together, the appellant would be entitled to additional compensation of ` 71,100/- over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal. This amount would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till date of payment. The 3rd respondent-insurance company is directed to deposit this amount also within two months.
With the above modification of the impugned award of the Tribunal, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Sd/-
sdk+ K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
m.a.c.a.296/08 - : 5 :-