Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 18357
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MARY JOSEPH, J
ABDUL AZEEZ P.A. – Appellant
Versus
JAGANNATHA.S. – Respondent
MACA 2744 2012
SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED, SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR
The judgment established that future earning potential and actual income should be adequately considered when calculating compensation for personal injuries in motor accident claims.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Vehicle Accident - Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 166, 168 - The court modified the compensation awarded for a motor accident case, considering income, disability, and future prospects, leading to an increase in the total claim based on evidence and legal precedents.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought compensation after sustaining serious injuries, including amputation of the right leg, in a motorcycle accident caused by the negligent driving of a bus. The initial compensation awarded was contested for being inadequate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the initial compensation undercalculated, refixing the monthly income, assessing loss of earnings, permanent disability, and relevant expenses, thus increasing the total compensation owed to the petitioner.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the adequacy of compensation and whether the tribunal correctly assessed evidence related to income and injuries sustained by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that legal precedents allow for a reevaluation of compensation based on actual income evidence, future prospects, and the severity of injury, ensuring the victim receives just compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the compensation was increased to ₹8,85,200/-.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of March, 2023 The appeal on hand is directed against an award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on 25.08.2012 in O.P(MV)
No.687 of 2009.
2. Appellant is the petitioner before the Tribunal. A sum of ₹7,75,900/- was awarded as the compensation payable to him by the impugned award and the 4th respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle was directed to deposit that sum with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Petition till the date of payment alongwith proportionate costs, within thirty days from the date of the award. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation stood awarded by the Tribunal, the appeal on hand is filed.
3. The parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner and respondents 1 to 4 in accordance with their status in the above Original Petition.
4. Before going into the contentions raised by the parties to this appeal, it is relevant to have a discussion of the facts of the case in brief. On 24.07.2009 at 4.30 p.m., the Motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-14C/6426 ridden by the petitioner through Kannippady-Badiyduka road, was hit by a Bus bearing Registration No.KL 14B/7209 which came from behind, due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver and thereby he sustained serious injuries. He was rushed to Tejasvini Hospital & SSIOT, Mangalore for treatment and his right leg was amputated there, below knee.
5. Raising a claim for ₹20,00,000/- as compensation, the Original Petition on hand was filed.
The driver, the owners and insurer of the offending vehicle were arrayed as respondents 1 to 4 in the Original Petition. The Original Petition was dismissed for default as against the 1st respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 though summoned by the Tribunal, did not turn up to contest the Original Petition and therefore were declared as ex parte.
6. 4th respondent filed written statement admitting insurance coverage of the offending vehicle. It was contended that since 02.08.2007, the 3rd respondent was the owner of the vehicle. It was contended furthermore that the motor accident was occurred due to negligence of the petitioner who caused the Motorcycle to be stopped all on a sudden without signal just ahead of the Bus. The age, the occupation and the monthly income of the petitioner were disputed.
The compensation claimed was also disputed for its exorbitant nature and lack of basis.
7. On the petitioner's side Exts.A1 to A13 and Ext.X1 were marked. Respondents did not adduce any evidence. Based on the evidence adduced by the petitioner, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the motor accident in question was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing Registration No.KL 14B/7209 by the 1st respondent. Tribunal also found that the petitioner in view of the injuries sustained, is entitled to get compensation from the respondents. ₹7,75,900/- was arrived at as the compensation payable in favour of the petitioner and the 4th respondent was directed to deposit the said sum with interest at the rate of 8% per annum and proportionate costs.
8. Sri.P.K. Muhammed, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner claimed to be a licensed insurance agent under Reliance Life Insurance Company as well as under HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company and a Distributor cum Sales Executive in Indian Agencies, Badiyaduka, Kasaragod. He claimed to be aged 25 years and earning ₹16,000/- per month. According to him, materials were produced and marked in evidence as Exts.A7 to A13 series to establish the above aspects. Ext.A7 is nothing but an agency licence identity card issued by HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. Ext.A8 is the PAN Card issued by Income Tax Department, Ext.A9 is the licence issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, Ext.A10 is the salary certificate issued by Indian Agencies, Kasaragod, Ext.A11 is the cash voucher issued by
