Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN SATURDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1943 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 23.03.2017 IN OPMV 639/2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , MANJERI APPELLANT/PETITIONER: SAMEER K. S/O.SAIDALI, VALAYAKOTTIL HOUSE, POOKOLATHUR, PULPATTA AMSOM, P.O.PULPATTA, ERNAD TALUK, VIA MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676123. BY ADV SRI.K.VIDYASAGAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 ABDURAHIMAN M.P. S/O.KADAR HAJI M.P., MUNDAKKAL, PARAMBIL HOUSE, ELAYOOR, IRUVETTY P.O., ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673639. 2 ABDURAHIMAN M.P. S/O.KUJAPPU, MUNDAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULIKKAL, OPP.ASWINI HOSPITAL, THENNADI BAZAR, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-670101. 3 SHRIRAMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED E-8, EPIP RICCO IDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-302022. BY ADVS. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 2 - K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A.No. 2148 of 2017 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February, 2022
JUDGMENT
The appellant, aged 31 years, suffered injury in a motor vehicle accident in the year 2012. The appellant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. The appellant was assessed with 35% disability by a Medical Board, which was adopted in toto by the Tribunal. The appellant was also granted 150% future prospects, which in any way is excessive and there is also the question as whether a disabled person is entitled to such future prospects. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that considering the injuries, the amounts granted under pain and suffering and disfigurement is low and there is absolutely no amounts granted under loss of amenities and future treatment. Learned counsel also submits that the appellant was granted only Rs.7,000/- as notional income, despite the fact that he asserted he was a Mason.
2. As far as pain and suffering Rs.25,000/- has been granted and
the petitioner had suffered hospitalization for 36 days. Considering the injuries, this Court is of the opinion that there is no scope for further enhancement there at. The disfigurement is said to be in his hand, for which the Tribunal has granted Rs.20,000/-, which is more than adequate. As far as loss of amenities, since the loss of income for disability has been - 3 - granted, this Court is of the opinion that a nominal sum of Rs.10,000/- can be granted. On the question of future treatment, the accident happened in 2012 and even after 10 years, the appellant has not produced any bills with respect to the further treatment. The Physiotherapy suggested in Ext.A6 certificate dated 20.03.2017 produced before the Tribunal has also not been substantiated by production of bills in the appeal, which is pending here for the last 5 years. Hence, there is no scope for enhancement there at also.
3. However, even a coolie, as has been decided in
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. : (2011) 13 SCC 236 would be fixed with a notional income of Rs. 8,500/- in the year 2012. As far as notional income of the appellant is concerned, he had a case that he is a Mason. It is only appropriate that an amount of Rs.9,000/- be fixed as the notional income. The future prospects can be taken only at 40%. In fact there is no future prospects permissible for an injured person especially when the disability is below 50%. But, first it has to be noticed that the Insurance Company has not filed any appeal. Then, the contention itself is that the injured is a Mason and the deformity caused is to the right hand, which would seriously impair his avocation.
4. Considering all these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the future prospects as taken by the - 4 - Tribunal, but reduce it to 140%. Enhancement is made as per the tabulation below:
Sl. Head of Claim Amount awarded by Total amount after
No. the Tribunal enhancement in appeal
Rs Rs
1 Loss of earning 70000 90000(9000x10)
2 Transportation Expenses 750 750 3 Extra nourishment 9000 9000 4 Damage to clothing 500 500 5 Medical Expenses 291642.48 291642.48 6 Bystander Expenses 12600 12600 7 Pain and suffering 25000 25000 8 Permanent disability 705600 846720
(9000x140%x16x12x35%)
9 Loss of amenities Nil 10000
10 Disfigurement 20000 20000
Total 1135092.48 1306212.48
Amount enhanced - Rs.13,06,212.48 - Rs.11,35,092.48 = Rs. 1,71,120/-5. The Insurance Company shall pay interest for the amounts awarded
by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award and for the enhanced amounts at the rate of 5% from the date of petition. If any amounts have already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. The claimant(s) shall produce the details of the Bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and amount shall be transferred to the Bank account directly through NEFT/RTGS mode within a period of one month thereafter. If the Bank account is not given within the time stipulated, it is made clear that no interest shall run on the enhanced amount after the - 5 - period stipulated by this Court. However, if the Insurance Company fails to deposit the amount as directed, interest on the enhanced amount shall also run at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of petition. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. Sd/-K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE lsn