Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 52837
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
JOHNSON – Appellant
Versus
RAMACHANDRAN C.R. – Respondent
MACA 1831 2013
The court established that previous judgments support higher evaluations of income and disability in compensation claims following motor accidents.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Vehicle Accident - Relevant Sections - The court assessed the compensation for injuries sustained in an accident involving a bicycle and a bus, emphasizing the appropriate monthly income and disability percentages, thereby adjusting the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was injured in a bicycle accident caused by a bus. The Tribunal initially awarded compensation, which the appellant challenged, seeking higher amounts based on monthly income and disability percentage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal undervalued both the monthly income and the percentage of disability, leading to an increase in compensation based on established legal principles.
Issues: Whether the monthly income and percentage of disability fixed by the Tribunal were appropriate and warranted adjustment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that statutory guidelines and previous judgments supported a higher monthly income and disability percentage, therefore increasing the awarded compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed in part, with enhanced compensation of Rs.62,280/- being granted.
J U D G M E N T
Award dated 11.04.2013 in OP(MV).No.135/2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the original petitioner. The respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent insurance company.
3. Brief facts :
On 30.11.2005 at about 5.45 p.m, while the appellant was pedaling his bicycle through Kunnamkulam – Thrissur public road, when he reached near Mundur, bus bearing Reg.No.KL7/S 5181 came from behind and hit on the appellant. The appellant sustained severe injuries. He was taken to Amala hospital and treated there as inpatient. The accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent, the driver of the bus. At the time of the accident, the bus was owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent.
4. The 3rd respondent filed written statement, disputing the accident and negligence, while admitting policy. Quantum of compensation also was disputed. The Tribunal went on trial and marked Exts.A1 to A11 on the part of the appellant. No evidence adduced by the respondents. Ext.X1 case diary also got marked. On appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal granted Rs.80,300/- as against the claim of Rs.4 lakh.
5. While challenging the award amount, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the monthly income of the appellant fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- is less in this case where the appellant,who was aged 34 years at the time of accident and doing coolie work, had claimed Rs.5,000/- as his monthly income. In fact, following the ratio in [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., Rs.5,000/- ought to be fixed in this case involving the accident of the year 2005. This aspect is not opposed by the learned counsel for the insurance company also. Therefore, for calculating loss of earnings and loss of disability income, the monthly income of the appellant is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
6. Another challenge raised is with regard to the percentage of disability accepted by the Tribunal. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that though Ext.A11 certificate showing 7% disability had been placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal fixed the disability at 4.5% and the same is on lower side.
7. Opposing increase in the percentage of disability, the learned counsel for the insurance company would point out that the Doctor, who issued Ext.A11 disability certificate, was not examined and the appellant failed to produce a disability certificate issued by a competent Medical Board. Therefore, the Tribunal in consideration of the injury and treatment, fixed the disability at
4.5%.
8. In this case, the appellant sustained the following injuries as borne out from Ext.A2 wound certificate and Ext.A6 discharge summary.
“Severe head injury, fracture maxilla, fracture Zygoma Rt., fracture scapula Lt., severe injury to lungs, fracture Ltd. Ribs with flail segment, severe lacerated wound and puncherd wound around on scalp face, upper limbs, trunk, chest injury, multiple bodily injuries.”
9. The appellant underwent inpatient treatment for a period of 22 days. It is true that the appellant sustained severe head injury with fracture of maxilla, fracture of zygoma Rt., fracture of scapula and fracture of Lt. ribs. In view of the matter, I am inclined to take 7% disability in this matter as against 4.5% fixed by the Tribunal. In this case the Tribunal granted Rs.9,000/- towards loss of earnings for 3 months @ Rs.3,000/-. Considering the injuries and treatment, I am inclined to grant loss of earnings for a period of 4 months @ Rs.5,000/-, which would come to Rs.20,000/-, out of which Rs.9,000/- was granted by the Tribunal. Hence Rs.11,000/- more is granted under the head loss of earnings.
The disability income is as under:
5000 X 12 X 16 X 7/100 = Rs.67,200/-, out of which Rs.25,92
