Vinod P.B S/O. Bhaskaran vs Benny Sebastian

C.S.Dias,J

The appellant was the petitioner in O.P (MV) No.263/2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,Ottapalam. The respondents in the

appeal were the respondents before the Tribunal.

The facts in brief, relevant for the determination of the appeal, are: on 14.07.2005, while the appellant was riding his motorcycle bearing registration

No. KL-8 U-3594 from Vadakkancherry to Mullurkkara, a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No. KL-8 AD 1400, driven by the first respondent

in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle. The first respondent was also the owner of the vehicle. The vehicle was insured with the second

respondent. The appellant was a headload worker by profession and earning a monthly income of Rs.4,500/-. The appellant sustained fractures and

was treated as an inpatient for a period of five days. The appellant suffered a permanent disability. Hence, the appellant claimed a total compensation

of Rs.2,40,750/- from the respondents, which was limited to Rs.1,50,000/-.

The first respondent though contested the proceedings, did not file any written statement.

The second respondent filed a written statement refuting the allegations in the claim petition. The second respondent contended that the accident

occurred on account of the negligence of the appellant. It was also stated that the amount of compensation claimed was excessive.

The appellant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A9 were marked in evidence. The respondents produced and marked Exts.B1 to B3 in

evidence.

The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part by permitting the appellant to realise an

amount of Rs.35,060/- with interest and costs from the second respondent.

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/petitioner is in appeal.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second 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.

Ext.A5 charge-sheet filed by the police substantiates that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the first respondent. Undisputably,

the second respondent was the insurer of the vehicle and therefore, the second respondent is liable to indemnify the liability of the first respondent.

The appellant had contended that he was a headload workers by profession and earning a monthly income of Rs.4,500/- per month. The Tribunal

fixed the notional income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month.

In Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the Hon'ble Supreme

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

Notional income:

Following the parameters in the afore-cited decision and considering the fact that the accident was occurred in 2005, I am of the considered

opinion that the appellant's notional income has to be re-fixed at Rs.4,500/- per month as claimed in the claim petition.

Loss of earnings:

It is proved that the appellant was indisposed for a period of two months. The Tribunal, on the basis of the notional income fixed, awarded the

appellant an amount of Rs.6,000/- as 'loss of earnings'. In view of the re-fixation of the notional income of the appellant at Rs.4,500/- per month, I re-

fix the 'loss of earnings' of the appellant at Rs.9,000/- i.e., an enhancement by Rs.3,000/-.

Loss due to disability:

The Tribunal had fixed the permanent disability of the appellant at 2%. In view of the re-fixation of the notional income of the appellant at

Rs.4,500/- per month and taking note of the fact that the appellant was 26 years at the time of accident and the relevant multiplier being '17', I re-fix

the compensation for 'loss due to disability' at Rs.18,360/-instead of Rs.12,960/- awarded by the Tribunal i.e., an enhancement by Rs.5,400/-.

Loss of amenities:

Taking note of the fact that the appellant had sustained fractures and was indisposed for a period of two months and suffered 2% permanent

disability, I hold that the appellant is entitled for compensation under the head 'loss of amenities' and 'pain and sufferings' by a further amount of

Rs.10,000/- .

With respect to the other heads of compensation, I find that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable and just compensation.

On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record and the law referred to in the afore-cited decisions, I am of the firm opinion

that the appellant/petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation as modified and re-calculated above i.e., an enhancement by a further amount

of Rs.18,400/-i.e., Rs.3,000/- towards 'loss of earnings', Rs.5,400/-towards the 'loss due to disability' and Rs.10,000/-towards 'loss of amenities' and

'pain and sufferings'.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.18,400/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum

from the date of petition till the date of deposit, after deducting the period of 114 days i.e., the period of delay in filing the appeal and as ordered by this

Court on 02.07.2021 in C.M.Appln. No.3205/2009, and proportionate costs. The second respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation

within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The Tribunal shall disburse the enhanced compensation to

the appellant/petitioner in accordance with law.

All pending interlocutory applications will stand closed.