Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE27H DAY OF SEPTEMBER20135TH ASWINA, 1935 MACA.No. 2101 of 2010 (A) -------------------------- AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV10322006 of M.A.C.T.,KOZHIKODE DATED1502-2010 APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP(MV): ---------------------------------------------------- K.MOHANAN, S/O. RAGHAVAN, AGED42YEARS, KATTUSSERY HOUSE, P.O.ARAKKINAR, MATHOTTAM KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN SMT.P.Y.SHEHEERA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV): -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CHINNAMMA, W/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, ANITHA NIVAS, P.O.ARTS COLLEGE, MEENCHANDA KOZHIKODE-673 001.
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 2ND FLOOR, NOOR COMPLEX, MAVOOR ROAD, P.B.NO.811, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 001. R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2709-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: cms S.SIRI JAGAN & K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
----------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.2101 of 2010 ================= Dated this the 27th day of September 2013
JUDGMENT
------------------ K.Ramakrishnan, J.
The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1032/2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, is the appellant herein. The appellant filed an application for compensation for the injuries and consequent disabilities sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle owned and driven by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent. After considering the evidence on records, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent and awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,12,669/- under various heads as follows: Transport to hospital 300/- Damage to clothing 300/- Loss of earning 3500/- Treatment expenses 37219/- Bystander's expenses 750/- Pain and sufferings 13000/- Loss of disability 57600/- Total 1,12,669/- M.A.C.A. No.2101 of 2010 -2- Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed this appeal before this Court.
2. We heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the insurance company.
3. The counsel for the appellant submitted that, the appellant was working as a checker in a bus and he was getting Rs.6,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has taken only Rs.2,000/- as his monthly income, which is on the lower side. Further he had suffered 16% disability and no amount was awarded under the head loss of amenities in life and inconvenience in life. Further the amount awarded under the head pain and suffering is also on the lower side. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,500/- for loss of earning which is also on the lower side considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the period of treatment undergone by him. The amount awarded by the Tribunal for bystander's expenses and other expenses are also on the lower side. So according to the counsel for the appellant, M.A.C.A. No.2101 of 2010 -3- the appellant is entitled to get enhancement on all heads.
4. On the other hand, the counsel for the 2nd respondent insurance company submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is more than the amount claimed by the petitioner in the petition and the total amount awarded is just and proper and no interference is called for at the hands of this court.
5. We have considered the rival contentions of both parties in detail.
6. Though the petitioner claimed that he is a checker in a bus and getting Rs.6,000/- per month at the time of accident, he had not produced any documents to prove this fact. But at the sometime the accident occurred on 5.3.2006. considering the cost of living and other aspects a person aged 38 years will be getting a monthly income of at least Rs.3,000/- per month. So we fix the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.3,000/- per month. He has sustained severe injuries viz (1) fracture nasal bone, (2) crush injury with amputation of (Rt) index finger, (3) scrotal haematoma M.A.C.A. No.2101 of 2010 -4- and (4) injury to middle finger. He was treated as inpatient for 16 days. So considering the circumstances we feel that he could not work at least for three months. So we award Rs.9,000/- under the head loss of earning instead of Rs.3,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.13,000/- under the head pain and sufferings which appears to be on the lower side considering the nature of injuries sustained by him. So we enhance the same to Rs.20,000/- from Rs.13,000/-. No amount was awarded under the loss of amenities in life. Considering the fact that he sustained 16% disability and also lost portion of his index finger and also considering his difficulty for the remaining period in his life and this may affect his personal life and cause inconvenience to his life which he will have to bear for the remaining period in his life, we award Rs.20,000/- under the loss of amenities in life. Though 16% disability was assessed by the medical board and another disability certificate shows that he had only 7% disability, we feel that there is no necessity to enhance any M.A.C.A. No.2101 of 2010 -5- amount under the head loss of earning capacity as the Tribunal has taken 16% disability taking his monthly income as Rs.2,000/- for that purpose, which appears to be just and proper. Further he was treated as inpatient for 16 days. Taking Rs.200/- per day for the bystander, he would have incurred Rs.3,200/- under that head. But the Tribunal awarded only Rs.750/- under the head bystander's expenses. So we award Rs.3,200/- under the head bystander's expenses instead of Rs.750/- awarded by the Tribunal. We are not inclined to enhance any amount under the heads as it appears to be just and proper. In all, appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of Rs.34,950/- which we round off to Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty six thousand only) over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal which the 2nd respondent insurance company is liable pay with 9% interest from the date of claim petition till the date of payment. Two months time is granted to the insurance company to deposit this amount as well. M.A.C.A. No.2101 of 2010 -6- 7. Since the claimant had paid only court fee for Rs.1,00,000/-, and the total compensation awarded is more than the amount claimed, he is liable to pay the balance court fee as well. The insurance company is directed to send two cheques one for the balance court fee payable and the other for the balance additional compensation awarded to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. With the above modification of the impugned award of the Tribunal, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Sd/- K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE Shg/