Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J.
Susy @ Lucy - Appellant
Versus
Suma Lalu & Ors. - Respondents
MACA No. 725 of 2014(C)
Decided On : 09-03-2021
Motor Accidents Claims – Grievous injuries – Compensation Awarded - Determination of appeal – When petitioner was travelling in a bus (offending vehicle), bus stopped in-front of College and Conductor directed passengers to alight from bus. While petitioner was alighting from bus, driver suddenly moved bus forward. Petitioner fell down and back wheel of bus ran over her and she sustained grievous injuries. Petitioner was treated at Hospital. Accident occurred due to rashness and negligence on part of respondents 3 and 4 –driver and conductor of bus - Appellant/petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation as modified and re-calculated above and given in the table below for easy reference - by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.2,43,900/-with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. (Para 22)
Finding of the court: When the competent Medical Board, as per Ext.X1, after examining the petitioner assessed her disability at 24.9%, the Tribunal ought to have accepted the said assessment certified by the expert body, instead of scaling down the percentage of disability to 20% by guess work. In the said circumstances, I set aside the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner suffers from only a disability of 20% instead of 24.9%. Due to the re-fixation of the permanent disability of the petitioner at 24.9% and her notional income at Rs.6,000/-, enhance the compensation under the head 'loss due to disability' at Rs.4,03,200/-instead of Rs.1,72,800/-as fixed by the Tribunal - By enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.2,43,900/-with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs - The disbursement of enhanced compensation to the appellant/petitioner shall be done by the Tribunal, in accordance with law.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
The appellant was the petitioner in O.P. (MV) No.1825/2009 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents in the claim petition. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the claim petition.
2. The concise case in the claim petition, for the determination of the appeal, is: on 1.8.2009 when the petitioner was travelling in a bus bearing Reg. No.KL-5V 6757 (offending vehicle) from Vadavathoor to Kottayam, the bus stopped in-front of the Baselious College and the Conductor directed the passengers to alight from the bus. While the petitioner was alighting from the bus, the driver suddenly moved the bus forward. The petitioner fell down and back wheel of the bus ran over her and she sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner was treated at the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. The accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the respondents 3 and 4 – the driver and conductor of the bus. The 1st respondent was the owner of the bus and the 2nd respondent is the insurer. The petitioner claimed that she was a maid servant and drawing a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. The respondents 1 to 4 – the owner, insurer, driver and conductor of the bus are jointly and severally liable to pay the petitioner a total compensation of Rs.3,67,106/-.
3. The respondents 1,3 and 4 remained absent and were set ex parte.
4. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement refuting the allegations in the claim petition. The 2nd respondent contended that the petitioner was only a house-wife at the time of accident. The allegations regarding the injuries, the period of treatment, the expenditure etc., were denied by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent also contended that there was no rashness of negligence on the part of the respondents 3 and 4. However, the 2nd respondent admitted that the offending vehicle was insured by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent prayed that the claim petition be dismissed.
5. The petitioner produced and marked Exts.A1 to A14 in evidence. Ext.X1 disability certificate was marked as a court exhibit. Neither party adduced any oral evidence.
6. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned award allowed the claim petition in part by directing the 2nd respondent to pay the petitioner a compensation of Rs.3,68,000/-with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation along with the proportionate costs.
7. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner is in appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.
9. Even though notice was served on the respondents 1,3 and 4, there is no appearance for them.
10. The sole question that emanates for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
11. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680], has held that Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, deals with the concept of 'just compensation' and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standards. The conception of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability
12. Ext.A3 final report, Ext.A5 scene mahazar and Ext.A6 vehicle mahazar substantiate that the petitioner met with an accident as averred in the claim petition, on 1.8.2009 due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the 3rd respondent, the driver of the bus. Ext.A8 wound certificate and Ext.A12 discharge book pro
Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, deals with concept of 'just compensation' and same has to be determined on foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standar....
The judgment establishes the criteria for determining compensation in personal injury cases, emphasizing fair assessment of permanent disability and income loss.
The main legal point established is the need for just and reasonable compensation for personal injury, considering the claimant's circumstances and the gravity of the injuries sustained.
The court emphasized that compensation for motor vehicle accident victims must be just and reasonable, potentially exceeding the claimed amount based on actual income and disability.
The court enhanced the compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, recognizing the severe impact on the petitioner's life, education, and future prospects.
The quantum of compensation awarded in a motor accident case should be reasonable and just, taking into account the income, disability, and other relevant factors of the injured person.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
