Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 68806
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Shoba Annamma Eapen, J
BENNY GEORGE – Appellant
Versus
KUTTAN KOONAMPLACKAL – Respondent
MACA NO. 2792 OF 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE, SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM, SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE
For the Respondents: SRI.ARUN BOSE, SRI.B.BIPIN, SRI.R.REJI, SHRI.M.V.THAMBAN, SMT.THARA THAMBAN
Court affirmed the need for proper assessment of compensation in motor vehicle accidents, emphasizing accurate evaluation of injuries and relevant principles when modifying tribunal awards.
Headnote:(A) Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Compensation - Appeal against the quantum of compensation awarded following a motorcycle accident. The appellant contended that negligence was on the part of the rider of the offending vehicle. Compensation was analyzed under different heads resulting in an additional award. (Paras 2-7)
(B) Claims - Heads of Claims - Tribunal's original award was modified leading to an additional compensation based on disability assessment and loss of amenities. The court upheld specific claims while confirming others as reasonable. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The claimant was injured due to a collision involving his motorcycle and the offending motorcycle. He sought higher compensation than awarded by the Tribunal.
Findings of Court:
Compensation was recalculated incorporating additional amounts for loss of amenities and permanent disability reflecting the claimant's injuries.
Issues: The main issue was the appropriate assessment of the percentage of permanent disability and loss of amenities awarded.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the disability assessment based on credible evidence, modifying awards for heads like permanent disability aligning with precedents.
Result: Appeal allowed in part with an additional compensation awarded.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claimant sustained injuries in a motorcycle accident. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. court assessed the compensation under different heads. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. compensation awarded adjusted for loss of disability and amenities. (Para 6) |
| 4. court's final decision modifying the original award. (Para 7) |
This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.1226 of
2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.
2. The case of the appellant/claimant is that on
18.07.2004 at about 5.30 pm, while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-5-M 35 and when he reached at Panakkal bridge side, another motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-5-N-3972 ridden by the deceased Manoj in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle and caused injury to the appellant/claimant. The claimant approached the ₹
Tribunal claiming a total compensation of 2,00,000/-
3. Respondents 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased Manoj, who was the rider cum owner of the offending motorcycle. Respondents 3 and 4 remained ex parte, before the tribunal. Respondents 1 and 2 jointly filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the claimant himself and disputed the quantum of compensation claimed. PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exts.A1 to A13 were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a total compensation of ₹ ₹
1,22,848/- rounded to 1,23,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the respondents 1-4 being the legal heirs of the deceased. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
5. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging compensation under the following heads:-
₹
Loss of amenities :- Though an amount of 75,000/- was claimed towards the head loss of amenities, the Tribunal has ₹
awarded only an amount of 10,000/- under this head. Considering the injuries, age and loss of enjoyment in life, I find ₹
that the appellant is entitled to get an amount of 15,000/- under the afore head. Thus, there will be an additional amount ₹
of 5,000/- under the head, loss of amenities.
Permanent disability :-The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, as per Ext.A1 disability certificate dated 08.08.2007 issued by PW1, the permanent disability of the appellant was assessed at 7%. However, the Tribunal erroneously reduced the disability to 3% without adequate justification. The learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that as per Ext.A17 records the appellant sustained following injuries:
1. Clavicle fracture (R)
2. Contusion on the liver.
3. Contusion on the (R) eye. 4. Contusion on the (L) eye.
5. Injury on the left cheek.
6. Black eye.
7. Bleeding from the nose and eye.
8. Severe chest pain.
9. Swelling on the forehead.
10. Injury of over (R) shoulder.
11. Contusion both eyes.
12. Abdominal Contusion.
Considering the injuries sustained, I find no reason to disbelieve the said certificate or the testimony of PW1. Accordingly, the percentage of disability is re-fixed at 7%. Accordingly, following the judgments in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)] and Sarla Verma v.
Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the compensation under the head is recalculated thus:
₹
(7918x12x15x7/100) 99,766/-. The Tribunal has awarded an ₹
amount of 42,757/- under this head. Therefore, the appellant ₹
is entitled to get an additional amount of 57,009/- under the head permanent disability.
6. Though the appellant claimed enhancement of compensation under the other heads, on a perusal of the records available, I am not inclin
