C.Devarajan vs Shaji

,,

C.S.Dias, J",,

The appellant was the petitioner in OP (MV) No.360 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. The",,

respondents in the appeal were the respondents before the Tribunal.,,

The facts in brief, relevant for the determination of the appeal, are: on 19.10.2001, while the appellant was riding his Scooter through Kollam-",,

Thiruvananthapuram National Highway, a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.KL 2A/ 6992 (offending vehicle) ridden by the 2nd",,

respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the Scooter of the appellant. The appellant sustained serious injuries in the accident including a,,

compound fracture on the left leg ankle metatarsal. The offending vehicle was owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. The,,

appellant was the Branch Manger of Asian Steel Industries, Calicut and was earning a monthly income of Rs.12,000/-. The appellant contended that",,

the respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay him compensation, which he quantified at Rs.1,11,000/-.",,

The respondents 1 and 2 filed a written statement contending that the claim petition was not maintainable and that the appellant had only sustained,,

minor injuries. It was admitted that the offending vehicle was ridden by the 2nd respondent . Nevertheless, it was contended that the 2nd respondent",,

was not negligent in causing the accident, but it was due to the negligence of the appellant that the accident had happened.",,

The 3rd respondent filed a written statement admitting that the offending vehicle had a valid insurance policy. None the less, it was contended that",,

in the FIR, the number of the offending vehicle was different.",,

The appellant examined a witness as PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A18 series in evidence.,,

The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, dismissed the claim petition for the reason that the vehicle number mentioned in",,

the FIR was KL 2A/ 7371, but in the final report it was mentioned as KL 2A/ 6996.",,

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, the petitioner/appellant is in appeal.",,

Heard Smt.Lakshmi Swaminathan, the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and the Sri.Lal George, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd",,

respondent-insurance company.,,

The questions that arise for consideration in the appeal is (i) whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petitioner and (ii) whether the,,

appellant is entitled for any compensation?,,

The specific case of the appellant in the claim petition was that while he was driving his Scooter along the Kolam â€" Thiruvananthapuram,,

National Highway, a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.KL 2A/6992 ridden by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit his",,

Scooter. The offending vehicle was owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent.,,

However, in Ext.A1 FIR registered by the Kollam Traffic Police in Crime No.562 of 2001, the offending vehicle's number was shown as KL 2 A/",,

7371. Nevertheless, the police in Ext.A2 final report found that it was due to negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent who rode the vehicle",,

bearing registration No.KL 2A/6992 that the accident occurred.,,

The appellant had produced Ext.A7 judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Kollam, which substantiates that the 2nd respondent",,

had pleaded guilty to the charges framed against him for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 338 of the IPC r/w section 134 (a) and (h) of,,

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,750/-. Therefore, it is proved beyond any semblance of doubt that the",,

accident was caused on account of the negligence of the 2nd respondent, who rode the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, which the",,

respondents have admitted.,,

It is only on the basis of discrepancy in Ext.A1 FIR that the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, for which the appellant cannot be found fault",,

with. The course adopted by the Tribunal, according to me, is perverse and erroneous. The Tribunal ought to have looked into Ext.A2 final report and",,

Ext.A7 judgment, which proves that the 2nd respondent was negligent in riding the offending vehicle, which is the case of the appellant in the claim",,

petition and which stands corroborated by the evidence of PW1. Therefore, I set aside the findings in the impugned award holding the appellant has",,

not proved that there was negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent.,,

Undisputedly, the 1st respondent was the owner and the 3rd respondent was the insurer of the offending vehicle. Therefore, I hold that it is the 3rd",,

respondent who is liable to indemnify the liability of the 1st respondent to pay the compensation to the appellant.,,

Now coming to the question of reasonable and just compensation.,,

The appellant had claimed that he was a Branch Manger in a Private Company and earning a monthly income of Rs.12,000/-. The appellant had",,

produced Ext.A14 Saral Form to substantiate his income. However, the said Saral Form was submitted on 15.02.2002 i.e., nearly four months after",,

the accident. Hence, the said document cannot be taken on its face value to fix the income of the appellant.",,

The appellant had also produced Ext.A15 salary certificate to prove that he was earning an annual income of Rs.74,100/-. The said certificate is",,

unsigned and is not corroborated by its author. Therefore, I decline to accept the said document to fix the income of the appellant.",,

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236] has",,

fixed the notional income of a Coolie worker in the year 2004, at Rs.4,500/- per month.",,

Notional income,,

Following the ratio in Ramachandrappa (supra) and taking note of the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2001, I hold that the appellant's",,

notional income can safely be fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month. Hence, I re-fix the notional income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month.",,

Loss of earnings,,

It is on record that the appellant had sustained a compound fracture on his left leg ankle metatarsal. It is also proved by Ext.A12 discharge bill that,,

the appellant was treated as an in-patient for a period of six days. However, there is no document on record to prove that the appellant had suffered",,

any permanent disability. Nevertheless, as the appellant had sustained a fracture and was treated as an in-patient for a period of six days and that he",,

had claimed an amount of Rs.14,000/- towards 'loss of earnings', I hold that the amount claimed is reasonable. Hence, I fix the appellant's 'loss of",,

earnings' at Rs.14,000/- as claimed in the claim petition.",,

Sl. No,Heads of claim,"Amounts modified and

recalculated by this

Court

1,Loss of earning,"14,000/-

2,Transport,"1,500/-

3,Damages to clothing,500/-

4,Bye-stander expenses,"1,200/-

5,Expenses for extra nourishment,"1,500/-

6,Medical expenses,"6,086/-

7,Compensation for pain and sufferings,"10,000/-

8,Compensation for loss of amenities,"10,000/-

,,"44,786/-