AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
,,,
C.S.Dias, J",,,
The appellant was the petitioner in OP (MV) No.449 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. The",,,
respondents in the appeal were the respondents in the claim petition. This Court by order dated 28.06.2017 and 31.03.2021 deleted the 4th respondent,,,
and the 2nd respondent, respectively, from the party array. Therefore, the parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in",,,
the claim petition.,,,
The concise facts in the claim petition, relevant for the determination of the appeal are: on 23.12.2001, while the petitioner was riding a Kinetic",,,
Honda Scooter bearing registration KL01/P 6872 along the Ullur-Sreekariyam public road with his wife as a pillion rider, when they reached",,,
Kallampally, a Bus bearing registration No.KL 15/3801 (offending vehicle) driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the",,,
Scooter of the appellant. The petitioner sustained serious injuries and his wife sustained to fatal injuries. The offending vehicle was owned by the 1st,,,
respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. The Scooter was owned by the 4th respondent and insured with the 5th respondent. The petitioner,,,
was a tuition teacher by profession and earning a monthly income of Rs.3,000/-. The petitioner sustained an head injury and fractures on his right",,,
cavicle and scapula etc. He was admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and, thereafter, referred to the Sree Uthradam",,,
Thirunal Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. He was treated as an in-patient from 23.12.2001 to 11.01.2002 and, then from 08.02.2002 to 18.02.2002.",,,
The petitioner is permanently disabled due to the accident. He contended that the respondents 1 to 3 were jointly and severally liable to pay,,,
compensation to him, which he quantified at Rs.7,70,500/-, but limited to Rs.7,00,000/-",,,
The petitioner and his children filed OP(MV)No.452 of 2002 before the same Tribunal, claiming compensation on account of the death of the wife",,,
of the petitioner.,,,
The 3rd respondent filed written statements in both the original petitions. It was conceded that the offending vehicle had a valid insurance policy.,,,
However, the 3rd respondent denied there was any negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent in driving the offending vehicle.",,,
The Tribunal consolidated and jointly tried the original petitions. PWs 1 to 3 were examined on the side of the petitioner and Exts.A1 to A28 were,,,
marked in evidence.,,,
The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by a common award allowed the claim petition filed by the petitioner, in part, by",,,
permitting him to recover an amount of Rs.2,58,000/-with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 18.03.2012 till the date of realization and costs.",,,
The 3rd respondent was directed to pay the compensation amount.,,,
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner is in appeal.",,,
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-insurance company.,,,
The sole question that emerges for consideration in the appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and,,,
just?,,,
A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680], has held that",,,
Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, deals with the concept of 'just compensation' and the same has to be determined on the foundation of",,,
fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standards. The conception of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through the prism of",,,
fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability.",,,
Ext.A4 final report filed by the police substantiates that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the 2nd respondent, who drew the",,,
offending vehicle in a rash manner. Admittedly, the 1st respondent was the owner of the vehicle and the 3rd respondent was the insurer. Therefore, it",,,
is the 3rd respondent who is liable to indemnify the liability of the 1st respondent.,,,
The petitioner had claimed that he was a retired Selection Grade Instructor of the College of Engineering, Thiruvananthapuram. After his",,,
retirement, he was conducting tuition classes and he had an income of Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal, for the want of materials, fixed the notional",,,
income of the petitioner at Rs.1,500/- per month.",,,
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 parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited decision and considering the fact that the petitioner was a,,,
retired Selection Grade Instructor in an Engineering college and that he was conducting tuition classes at his residence, I am of the opinion that the",,,
petitioner's income can safely be fixed, as claimed in the claim petition, at Rs.3,500/- per month. Hence, I re-fix the petitioner's notional income at",,,
Rs.3,500/- per month.",,,
Loss of earnings,,,
Going by Exts.A18 to A20 discharge summaries it is proved that the petitioner was hospitalised from 23.12.2001 to 18.02.2002 under two spells,,,
spanning 29 days. Therefore, his loss of earnings can well be fixed for two months. In view of the re-fixation of the petitioner's income, I enhance the",,,
compensation under the head 'loss of earnings' at Rs.6,000/-.",,,
Loss due to disability,,,
It is seen that the Tribunal had fixed the disability of the petitioner at 25% based on Ext.A27 and A28 certificates proved through PW 2 and PW3.,,,
In the light of the said certificates and the oral testimonies of the above witnesses I concur with the fixation of the disability of petitioner at 25%.,,,
Multiplier,,,
It is seen that the Tribunal has fixed the multiplier at '5'. In view of the ratio in Pranay Sethi (supra) and considering that the appellant was 60,,,
years of age on the date of accident, the relevant multiplier is '7'. Thus, in view of the re-fixation of the income of the petitioner, his liability at 25% and",,,
the multiplier at '7', the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the head 'loss due to disability' at Rs.63,000/- instead of Rs.22,500/- fixed by the",,,
Tribunal.,,,
Sl.
No",Heads of claim,"Amount awarded by
the Tribunal (in
rupees)","Amounts modified
and recalculated by
this Court
1,Loss of earning,"3,000/-","6,000/-
2,Transport,"2,000/-","2,000/-
3,Damages to clothing,250/-,250/-
4,Bye-stander expenses,nil,"5,800/-
5,Expenses for extra nourishment,"1,000/-","1,000/-
6,Medical expenses,214/-,214/-
7,Compensation for pain and sufferings,"15,000/-","15,000/-
8,Compensation for loss of amenities,nil,"15,000/-
9,Loss due to disability,"22,500/-","63,000/
,,"43,964/-","1,08,264/-