Loading...

K.K.Alikunju vs V.S.Sainabha on 23 November, 2009

Kerala High Court
K.K.Alikunju vs V.S.Sainabha on 23 November, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 2055 of 2007()


1. K.K.ALIKUNJU, AGED 58 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. V.S.SAINABHA, W/O T.B.KUNJUMUHAMMED,
                       ...       Respondent

2. JOSHY, S/O NARAYANAN,

3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ANIL S.RAJ

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.JAYASANKAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :23/11/2009

 O R D E R
    P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   M.A.C.A. No. 2055 of 2007
        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      Dated this the 23rd day of NOVEMBER, 2009

                           J U D G M E N T

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

1. Challenge in this appeal is in respect of the

inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Motor

Accidents Claim Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(MV)

No.1697/1999.

2. Appellant/claimant, while travelling as a passenger

in the bus bearing No.KL-7H 9099, sustained serious

injuries when the bus went out of control, crossing the

median and hit against a building, which led to the claim

petition preferred before the Tribunal.

3. First respondent/owner of the bus and the second

respondent/driver did not choose to contest the matter,

despite the service of notice. In the said circumstance, the

third respondent/insurer was permitted to have wider

defence on allowing the petition filed under Section 170 of

M.A.C.A. No. 2055 of 2007
2

the Motor Vehicles Act. The evidence consists of Ext.A1 to

A9 marked on the side of the claimant and Ext.B1 copy of the

Policy produced on the part of the third respondent, while no

oral evidence was adduced by either side. After appreciation

of the facts and figures, the Tribunal held that the accident

was because of the rash and negligent driving by the second

respondent and hence that the claimant was liable to be

compensated in respect of the injuries sustained.

4. After going through the available evidence on

record, the Tribunal awarded various amounts under the

permissible heads; such as Rs.16,500/- towards the

permanent disability, Rs.20,000/- towards the pain and

suffering, Rs.1,000/- towards the transportation to hospital,

Rs.2,500/- towards the extra nourishment and bystander’s

expenses, Rs.3,750/- towards the loss of earning for three

months, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities and a further

sum of Rs.42,889/- towards medical expenses, thus granting

a total sum of Rs.96,631/- (in place of the actual figure of

M.A.C.A. No. 2055 of 2007
3

Rs.96,639/-) which was directed to be satisfied by the insurer

with interest @7% per annum from the date of the petition

till the date of payment.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that

the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are very much on the

lower side and it requires to be enhanced to a substantial

extent, in view of the nature of injuries sustained and the

consequences resulted. Learned counsel however concedes

that no oral evidence was adduced from the part of the

claimant to substantiate the position in a better manner.

However, taking note of the injuries sustained, the amount of

medical expenses incurred, different spells of hospitalisation

and such other relevant aspects as brought to light, we find

that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under some

heads requires some modification.

6. It is seen that the permanent disability of

appellant/claimant has been certified as 10% as shown in

Ext.A8 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. It

M.A.C.A. No. 2055 of 2007
4

is seen that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.16,500/-

under this head, presumably taking the notional income of

the claimant at Rs.1,250/- per month as a Coolie/worker. We

find it fit and proper to have the same reworked, reckoning

the monthly income at least as Rs.1,750/- and on

recalculation of the figures reckoning the certified

permanent disability of 10%, and adopting the multiplier of

’11’ (based on the age of the claimant as 50 years), the

appellant is found entitled to get a further sum of Rs.6,600/-

as the balance compensation payable under this head. We

find that the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.1,000/-

towards the transportation expenses. Considering the facts

and figures as to the period of hospitalisation and the

treatment undergone in different hospitals, we find that a

further sum of Rs.2,000/- can be awarded under this head as

well. Considering the extent of injuries and also the

consequences resulted, a further sum of Rs.1,000/- is

awarded towards the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life.

M.A.C.A. No. 2055 of 2007
5

In view of the fact that we have reworked the compensation

for the permanent disability refixing the monthly income as

Rs.1,750/-, the appellant/claimant is eligible to get a further

sum of Rs.1,500/- towards loss of earning for three months.

7. In the result, the appellant is hereby awarded a

further sum of Rs.11,100/- as the balance compensation

payable in respect of the injuries sustained by him in the

accident occurred on 1/6/1999. The said amount shall be

deposited by the third respondent/insurer, with interest

@7% per annum from the date of the petition, till the date of

payment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Appeal is allowed in part. No cost.

P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

nl

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information