Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 3828
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SOPHY THOMAS, J
MUHAMMED RASHID @ RASHID – Appellant
Versus
GIRIVASAN E.K. – Respondent
MACA 616/2018
SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN, SMT.ANN SUSAN GEORGE, SRI.T.R.TARIN, SRI.V.A.VINOD, SRI.ABHIJETT LESSLI, SRI.M.A.GEORGE
Insurers must pay third-party claims despite violations of policy conditions, affirming the statutory nature of liability under motor insurance.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Accident - Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 147, 165 - The court examined compensation issues related to loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and permanent disability. Key principles established included the insurer's liability to pay regardless of policy violations in third-party claims, as established by past case law.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant sustained serious injuries in a road traffic accident caused by the rash driving of a car, resulting in hospitalization and a claim for compensation that was inadequately awarded by the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined the initial compensation award was inadequate, particularly regarding loss of income, pain and suffering, and bystander expenses, granting an enhanced total of Rs. 39,000 after reassessing these heads.
Issues: Whether the compensation awarded was adequate and if the insurer was liable to pay despite the driver's intoxication at the time of the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The insurer is liable to indemnify third-party claims even if the driver's intoxication violates policy terms, as the statutory nature of the insurance coverage obligates payment.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed, with enhanced compensation of Rs. 39,000 awarded to the claimant.
J U D G M E N T
The claimant in OP(MV) No. 646 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Manjeri, is the appellant herein. He is impugning the award dated 06.01.2018 on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.
2. The appellant, while travelling in an autorickshaw, met with a road traffic accident on 19.12.2013, at 3.10 p.m. KL-10/AD-1819 car driven by the 1st respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the autorickshaw, in which he was travelling and he was thrown out to the road, and he sustained serious injuries. He was admitted and treated for seven days at Al-Shifa Hospital, Perinthalmanna, and even after discharge, he had to take rest for six months. He was a driver by profession earning monthly income of Rs.12,000/-. Though he approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.2,40,000/-, against which he has preferred this appeal.
3. The 1st respondent was the driver of the offending car. The
2nd respondent was its owner and the 3rd respondent was its Insurer.
The accident, injuries and the Policy of the offending vehicle are not in dispute. Respondents 1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending car, remained ex parte before the Tribunal as well as before the appellate court. No oral evidence was adduced from either side before the Tribunal. Exts.A1 to A7 series and B1 to B3 were marked before the Tribunal.
4. Now let us have a re-appraisal of the facts and evidence to find out whether there is any illegality and impropriety in the award impugned
5. Heard learned counsel Sri.T.G.Rajendran appearing for the appellant, and Sri.Abhijett Lessli, learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Insurance Company.
6. According to the appellant, he was a driver by profession, aged only 25, earning monthly income of Rs.12,000/-. Learned Tribunal fixed his notional income @ Rs.7,500/- and loss of earning was assessed for six months only. According to the appellant, the notional income fixed was too low, when compared to his actual income. Though he did not adduce any evidence to prove his actual income, since he was aged only 25 at the time of accident which occurred in the year 2013, going by the decision Ramachandrappa v.
Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [ AIR 2011 SC 2951 ], he was eligible to get his notional income fixed @ Rs.9,000/-. So, for loss of income for six months, he was eligible to get Rs.54,000/-. Since he was already paid Rs.45,000/- by the Tribunal, he is eligible to get the balance Rs.9,000/- under the head ‘loss of earning’.
7. Ext.A3 Discharge Certificate issued from Al Shifa Hospital Pvt.
Ltd. shows that the appellant had suffered closed fracture of shaft of femur (R), type I open fracture of both bones leg (L) with multiple abrasion. He was admitted on 19.12.2013 and was discharged on 27.12.2013. He preferred the claim petition before the Tribunal on 04.06.2014 and the award was passed by the Tribunal on 06.01.2018 i.e., after about four years of the accident. No disability certificate was produced by him before the Tribunal. If he had actually suffered any disability due to the injuries he has suffered in the accident, definitely he would have produced the Disability Certificate. Even then, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards permanent disability/loss of amenities, even without ascertaining whether there was any disability or loss of amenities.
8. Pending appeal, the appellant filed IA No.1 of 2019 stating that he had suffered disability due to the accident, and so a direction may be given to the Superintendent, Medical Board, Medical College Hospital, Manjeri or any other Medical Board/Medical Expert to assess his disability. This Court, as per order dated 11.11.2022, allowed that IA and directed the appellant to appear before the Superintendent, Medical College Hospital, Manjeri along with all the medical records for subjecting himself for medical examination by the Medical Board const
