IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 78 of 2005()
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. LOOSY PALLIKUDIYAN, D/O. KANNAN,
... Respondent
2. T.S.NIRMALAA, D/O. SUMITHRAN PAUL, -DO-.
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.M.V.AMARESAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :17/02/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.78 of 2005
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009
JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
Insurer is the appellant. Claimants claimed an amount of
Rs.5 lakhs as compensation for injuries suffered by the 1st
claimant as a result of the accident which took place on
10.07.1998. A total amount of Rs.5 lakhs was claimed. While
the claim filed by the 1st claimant was pending, he expired on
17.05.99. His legal heirs – wife and daughter came on record as
additional petitioners 2 and 3. They contended that the death
was on account of the injury suffered in the accident. Deceased,
the 1st claimant had suffered head injury, fracture of the thorasic
spine and multiple fracture of the ribs. He had become
paraplegic as a result of the accident. He was an inpatient for a
period of about 150 days. He was aged between 65-70 years. By
occupation he was a fisherman. He had continued to be
paraplegic till the date of his death. The Tribunal had before it
the oral evidence of the third additional petitioner, the daughter
of the deceased-1st claimant and Exts.A1 to A7. The Tribunal
M.A.C.A. No.78 of 2005 2
proceeded to pass the impugned award directing payment of a
total amount of Rs.2,09,000/- as per the details which are given
in para.11 to 18.
2. The appellant/insurer contends that the quantum of
compensation awarded is excessive. It is submitted at the Bar
that the requisite permission under Section 170 of the Motor
Vehicles Act was granted to the appellant by the Tribunal.
3. What precisely is the grievance of the appellant ? We
note that amounts have been awarded under the following
heads.
i) Medical Expenses : Rs.65,000/- (against bills
for actual expenses
produced)
ii) Damage to clothing : Rs.1,000/-
iii) Extra nourishment : Rs.10,000/- (inpatient for
about 5 months, lived
thereafter for 5 months as
a paraplegic)
iv) Transport to hospital : Rs.3,000/- (He was an
inpatient in 2 hospitals for
5 months in all)
v) Bystander expenses : Rs.10,000/-
vi) Loss of earnings : Rs.20,000/- (10 X 2000)
vii) Pain and suffering : Rs.35,000/-
M.A.C.A. No.78 of 2005 3
viii) Loss of amenities of
life : Rs.25,000/-
ix) Shortened
expectation of life : Rs.50,000/-
..................
Total : Rs.2,09,000/-
4. The Tribunal found that there was no specific
evidence to establish the nexus between the accident and death.
The Tribunal evidently found it difficult to compute the quantum
of compensation payable for the disability suffered. Was only
disability suffered by him on account of the accident ? Or, was
death the result of the accident ? It is in this dilemma that the
Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.75,000/- calling the same as
the total amount payable under the head of loss of amenities and
shortened expectation of life. It does not require the wisdom of
Solemn to assume and presume in the facts and circumstances of
this case that death 10 months after the accident of the deceased
was accelerated by the accident even if the death is not the
direct consequence of the injury. He was continuing treatment
in the hospital for 5 months and continued to be a paraplegic on
account of the injury suffered in the accident till the date of his
death. He is entitled to compensation for reduction in earning
M.A.C.A. No.78 of 2005 4
capacity and loss of amenities of life if it were assumed that the
accident had resulted only in injuries and disability to him. On
the contrary if it were to be assumed that the injuries had
resulted in death, the compensation must be computed and
awarded under the head of loss of dependency. Faced with this
dilemma, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.75,000/-. If
Rs.2,000/- were reckoned as the monthly income and the
applicable multiplier (5) is reckoned, compensation for loss of
dependency would be Rs.80,000/- (2,000 X 12 X 2/3 X 5). On the
contrary if the injury suffered were to be reckoned only as
resulting in permanent complete disablement, the 1st claimant
would have been entitled to an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (2000 X
12 X 5). It is in these circumstances the Tribunal chose to award
only a total amount of Rs.75,000/- calling the same as
compensation payable for loss of amenities and shortened
expectation of life. We are satisfied that the amount awarded
under that head, by whatever name it is called, is absolutely
reasonable and does not at any rate warrant interference.
5. Interest is seen awarded @ 9% per annum. We must
take note of the fact that the accident had taken place on
10.07.1998. Notwithstanding the fact that the percentage of
M.A.C.A. No.78 of 2005 5
interest payable by banks etc. had fluctuated during the period,
we find no reason to interfere with the award of interest @ 9%
by the Tribunal.
6. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that
the impugned award does not warrant any interference. We
must say that in coming to this conclusion the satisfaction that
justice has been done by the impugned award has weighed with
us heavily.
7. In the result, this Appeal is dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(C.T.RAVIKUMAR)
rtr/-