Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 19TH BHADRA, 1943 MACA NO. 3092 OF 2014 [AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)NO.418/2010 DATED 11.08.2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR]
APPELLANT/PETITIONER: NEO, S/O. JOSE, AGED 27 YEARS PINDIYAN HOUSE, VARAKKARA DESOM AND P.O., AMBALLUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3: 1 BENNY, S/O. JOSE, PALAYOOR HOUSE, VARAKKARA P.O., AMBALLUR-680325. 2 ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD KOCHI- 682031. BY ADV SRI.R.AJITH KUMAR FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA No.3092 of 2014 2
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal preferred by the petitioner in OP(MV)No.418 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident occurred on 16.03.2008. The Insurance Company alone contested the matter by filing a written statement wherein they admitted the coverage of policy in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident but disputed the liability on various grounds. The Insurance Company also contended that there are violation of policy conditions as the vehicle was being driven without a valid driving licence by the 1st respondent at the relevant time.
2. The evidence in this case consists of oral MACA No.3092 of 2014 3 evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A12 from the side of the appellant. From the side of the respondent, Ext.B1 insurance policy was marked.
3. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the
conclusion that the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the 1st respondent and it was also found that the 1st respondent was driving the vehicle without any valid driving licence. The total compensation fixed by the Tribunal is Rs.76,020/-. Since it was found that there was violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the said amount along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition and proportionate cost and they were permitted to realize the said amount from the 1st respondent after depositing the same.
4. Being aggrieved by the quantum of MACA No.3092 of 2014 4 compensation, this appeal is filed.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The main contention put forward by the
learned counsel for the appellant is regarding the amounts awarded under the heads of pain and suffering and loss of amenities. He also disputes the monthly income taken by the Tribunal for the purpose of computing the compensation for loss of earnings. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company points out that even though there is no evidence as to any permanent
disability, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.16,000/- under the head of permanent disability which was calculated at the rate of Rs.4,000/- each, for four teeth which were lost by the appellant due to the injuries sustained.
7. On examining the totality of the facts and circumstances and also taking into account the
MACA No.3092 of 2014 5 nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, I am of the view that, some additional amount can be granted to the appellant under the heads of pain and suffering as well as loss of amenities. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that, the awarding of Rs.5,000/- under these heads would meet the ends of justice and accordingly, it is granted.
8. I am not inclined to accept the contention
of the learned counsel for the insurance company regarding the award of Rs.16,000/- for loss of four teeth. As the loss of teeth, is a permanent loss to a person, I do not find any infirmity on the part of the Tribunal in awarding a reasonable amount for the same. Under no circumstances, Rs.16,000/- can be treated as irrational.
9. The accident which is the subject matter
of the claim occurred during the year, 2008. MACA No.3092 of 2014 6 According to the appellant, he was a mechanic
aged 23 years, and the monthly income claimed was Rs 4,000/-. The Tribunal taken the monthly income of Rs.3,500/-. In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735] and Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236] , the monthly income of Rs.4,000/- as claimed by the
appellant can be accepted. The revision of monthly income would result in an additional compensation of Rs.1,500/- (Rs.4,000x3-10,500)
under the head of the compensation for loss of earnings.
10. In such circumstances, the appeal is
allowed by granting an additional amount of Rs.11,500/-(Rupees Eleven thousand and five hundred only) which shall be deposited by the MACA No.3092 of 2014 7
Insurance Company along with interest and costs as ordered by the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that, the Insurance Company shall be entitled to realize the said additional amount also from the 1st respondent after such deposit. The appeal is disposed of as above. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE pkk