Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA THURSDAY, THE27H DAY OF NOVEMBER20146TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936 MACA.No. 996 of 2004 ( ) ------------------------- AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV9121996 of MACT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED2006-2002 ------------------ APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP(MV) :- ----------------------------------- S.RAJENDRAN, S/O. SUNDARESAN, AGED49 T.C.1822, C-27 CHITRA NAGAR, PANGODE, THIRUMALA P.O. TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV) :- ----------------------------------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, J.JAYALALITHA, TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MADRAS - 600 002 RENAMED AS TAMIL NADU STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORTATION, PALLAVAN SALAI, MADRAS.
2. V.MURUGAN S/O. VADAMALAI, KUNNAPALAYA STREET, PANDURITY, VALLALAR DISTRICT TAMIL NADU.
3. R.PALANISWAMY, RAHAMMANKOIL STREET, SANDURURPALAYAM, CUDDALORE -3.
4. V.VELMURUGAN S/O. VENKATESAN, PERIYAPILLAYARMEDU, KEPAR KUWERI P.O. CUDDALORE (T.K.), TAMIL NADU.
5. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC R5 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2711-2014, ALONG WITH MACA. 1030/2004, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T. R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.V.ASHA, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. Nos.996 & 1030 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of November, 2014
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
These two appeals are from the award in OP (MV) No.912 of 1996 of MACT, Thiruvananthapuram. MACA No.1030 of 2004 is filed by the first respondent before the Tribunal challenging both the quantum as well as the negligence aspect and MACA No.996 of 2004 is filed by the claimant himself challenging the quantum of compensation.
2. The accident occurred in the year 1995, exactly on 12.9.1995. The appellant in MACA No.996 of 2004 was having 45 years of age at the time of accident. He was a Welder and was travelling in a bus bearing registration No.TN07N9126owned by the appellant in MACA1030of 2004. A lorry bearing registration No.TAA2224 which was coming from the opposite direction collided with the bus and as a result of which, he sustained serious injuries. He claimed a total compensation of `3,00,000/-.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the M.A.C.A. Nos.996 & 1030 of 2004 -:
2. :- Insurance Company, namely, the 5th respondent in MACA No.996 of 2004.
4. As regards the negligence, the Tribunal found that both vehicles have equal negligence and therefore, the liability has been apportioned between them equally. The appeal filed by the first respondent is concerned with the quantum as well as the negligence aspect.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the monthly income earned by the appellant, who is a Welder in profession at `5,500/- was not accepted by the Tribunal and only a sum of `1,800/- has been fixed. Reliance is placed on Ext.A7 certificate of Registration with the Department of Industries & Commerce, which would show that he was the Proprietor of Yessar Enterprises. According to the learned counsel, the appellant being a welder, a reasonable amount ought to have been adopted as his monthly income. The disability, going by the certificate is 11%. But the Tribunal has accepted only 10%. Apart from the same, the learned counsel sought for refixation of the compensation under the head loss of earnings even though partial, since, according to the learned counsel, he was out of work for a period of six months which is M.A.C.A. Nos.996 & 1030 of 2004 -:
3. :- evident from Ext.A5 certificate dated 24.1.1996.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant in MACA No.1030 of 2004 submitted that since the accident is of the year 1995, the monthly income fixed is only reasonable. It is submitted that the amount awarded as compensation as of now is also not justified and is not a fair compensation.
7. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the Insurance Company also submitted that the claim of monthly income at `5,500/-, that too, in the year 1995 is exaggerated.
8. After going through the evidence, we are of the view that since the appellant is a skilled worker, namely, a welder it will only be proper to take `3,500/- as his monthly income. It is seen that he was treated as inpatient on different occasions as he sustained fracture on right femur. The details of treatment have been discussed by the Tribunal in paragraph 9 of the judgment.
9. The Tribunal has fixed the compensation in the following manner :- Head of Claim Amount awarded by the Tribunal (in rupees) Partial loss of earnings 5,400/- Medical expenses and expenses of bystander 25,000/- Transportation charges 3,000/- Compensation for permanent partial disability 32,400/- M.A.C.A. Nos.996 & 1030 of 2004 -:
4. :- Loss of amenities in life 15,000/- Loss of enjoyment in life 15,000/- Total 95,800/- 10. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant in MACA1030of 2004 submitted that the amount awarded towards loss of enjoyment of life is not justified in the light of the disability sustained by him, we are of the view that some amount can be granted. Learned Senior counsel for the Insurance Company pointed out that the multiplier adopted requires correction and the actual multiplier will be 14 and we accept the same. Therefore, we recompute the compensation in the following manner :- Amount Modified Head of Claim awarded by amount the Tribunal (in rupees) (in rupees) Partial loss of earnings for six months 5,400/- 21,000/- Medical expenses and expenses of bystander 25,000/- 25,000/- Transportation charges 3,000/- 3,000/- Compensation for permanent disability 32,400/- 64,680/- (3,500x12x14x11/100) Pain and sufferings 15,000/- 20,000/- Loss of amenities and enjoyment in life 15,000/- 15,000/- Total 95,800/- 1,48,680/- Thus, the appellant in MACA No.996 of 2004 will be entitled for a total compensation of `1,48,680/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty M.A.C.A. Nos.996 & 1030 of 2004 -:
5. :- Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty only). The same will be paid equally by the appellant in MACA No.1030 of 2004 and the 5th respondent in MACA No.996 of 2004. The Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of 9% for the amount fixed from the date of petition till realisation. Since there was a delay of 411 days in filing the appeal, the claimant will not be entitled to interest for the said period. These appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/- T. R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE. //True Copy// P.A. To Judge Jvt