Kerala High Court
Unknown vs Appellant/3Rd on 23 February, 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1939
MACA.No. 2920 of 2015
OPMV 525/2011 of IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT-IV/
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-II, THODUPUZHA
============
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT
------------------------
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
THODUPUZHA, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER
REGIONAL OFFICE, "SHARANYA", HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11.
BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
----------------------
RENJITH, S/O.BALACHANDRAN NAIR
HARI BHAVAN HOUSE, PERUMPILLICHIRA KARA
KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, PIN 685320.
BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-02-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SD
A.M.BABU, J.
................................
M.A.C.A.No.2920 of 2015
...............................................
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2018
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the underwriter who was directed by the tribunal to honour its award. The appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.
2. The 3rd respondent before the tribunal is the appellant. The sole respondent in the appeal was the petitioner before the tribunal. The parties are referred to in this judgment as they are shown in the memorandum of appeal. Appellant is the insurer. Respondent is the claimant.
3. It was on 24.11.2010 the accident. The respondent was a pillion rider on a motor cycle. A car, registration No.KL 7BB 8381, which came from the opposite direction hit the motor cycle. The car was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The car was insured with the appellant. The respondent sustained injuries in the accident. The above are facts either admitted or proved.
4. Heard Sri.Mathews Jacob, the learned senior counsel for the appellant and Sri.Mathew John, the learned counsel for the respondent. M.A.C.A.No.2920 of 2015 2
5. The respondent was an MBA student at the time of the accident. The tribunal did not accept his evidence as PW1 that he had a part-time employment while he was pursuing his MBA. Despite the said finding, the tribunal awarded a compensation of b936,000/- towards loss of earnings. That was a calculation of b96,000/- multiplied by 6 months. Referring to paragraph 14 of the impugned award, the learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent successfully completed his MBA course and came out with first class in July, 2011. The accident was on 24.11.2010. The point of the learned senior counsel is that as the respondent could complete his MBA course successfully, it was possible for him to continue his part-time job, if he had any. I am in agreement with the submission of the learned senior counsel. The amount of b936,000/- awarded by the tribunal shall be deducted.
6. Another grievance of the learned senior counsel was on the percentage of disability. The respondent was referred to the medical board attached to the taluk head quarters hospital, Thodupuzha twice. The first report of the medical board is Ext A8. The second one is Ext A15. Ext A8 certifies a disability of 15%. Ext A15 certifies 40%. The tribunal accepted Ext A15 and accepted the percentage of disability to be 40. It is not possible to agree with the learned senior counsel that M.A.C.A.No.2920 of 2015 3 the tribunal went wrong in accepting Ext A15. After the assessment by the medical board which issued Ext A8, the respondent had to undergo two surgeries. One of his kidneys had to be removed. His spleen was also removed. Considering these matters, I am in agreement with the tribunal that Ext A15 could safely be accepted. I do not find fault with the tribunal for having taken 40% as the permanent disability of the respondent relying on Ext A15.
7. The tribunal awarded b92,00,000/-as compensation for pain and sufferings. That was indeed excessive. For loss of amenities and convenience an amount of b91,00,000/- was awarded. That too was exorbitant. Looking at from any angle and applying any standard, the respondent was not entitled to compensation for pain and sufferings any amount above b950,000/- and for loss of amenities any amount above b930,000/-. That means b91,50,000/- and b970,000/- should be deducted from the total amount.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent too has a valid submission. The learned counsel submits that for affecting the marriage prospects, the compensation awarded was only b950,000/-. The injuries sustained by the respondent should be taken note of. The percentage of disability should also be considered. His kidney and spleen were M.A.C.A.No.2920 of 2015 4 removed. Considering these matters and also the disfiguration on the face, I find it appropriate to fix the compensation for affecting the marriage prospects at b91,00,000/-. b950,000/- was awarded by the tribunal. The respondent is entitled to get b950,000/- more.
9. For reasons given in the earlier paragraphs, the compensation awarded to the respondent should come down by b92,06,000/- (36,000 + 1,50,000 + 70,000 = 2,56,000 - 50,000).
10.The appeal stands allowed and the award of the tribunal stands modified as indicated below : The total amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal shall stand reduced by b92,06,000/- (two lakhs six thousand only). That means the total amount to which the respondent is entitled is b915,08,512/- (fifteen lakhs eight thousand five hundred and twelve only). That amount shall carry interest at the rate granted by the tribunal. If any balance is to be deposited by the appellant, the same shall be deposited within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
A.M.BABU, JUDGE
AMV/24/02/2018
/TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE
M.A.C.A.No.2920 of 2015
5