AMINA v. MANSOOR C

MANSOOR C., S/O BASHEER,CHERIYADAN HOUSE,SUVAYATHAMADU,KUNNUMMAL,CHERUSSOLA- P0,KOTTAKKAL,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-676510. N.T.MOHAMMED HAJI S/O.N.C.MOHAMMED HAJI,MALABAR ROAD LINES,NILAMBUR ROAD,MANJERI-PO,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-676121. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED JASEELA COMPLEX,BYPASS JUNCTION,NILAMBUR ROAD,MANJERI.P.O,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-676121. BY ADV SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A. No.920/2013 : 2 : JUDGMENT The appellant was the petitioner in OP(MV) No.1542/2009 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manjeri.

2. The said claim petition was submitted by her seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to her in a motor accident that occurred on 11.09.2009. According to the appellant, the accident occurred when she boarded a stage carriage, and before she could get a seat, the vehicle suddenly moved forward and as a result of which, she fell down inside the vehicle, thereby sustaining serious injuries. According to the appellant, the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver in driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The appellant was aged 60 years at the time of the accident and she sustained very serious injuries. She was a coolie with a monthly income of Rs.4,500/-. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances.

3. The 3rd respondent, the insurer of the said vehicle, filed a written statement admitting the coverage of policy for the said vehicle but contended that the appellant fell down due to her own carelessness. M.A.C.A. No.920/2013 : 3 :

4. The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A5 from the side of the appellant. The disability certificate issued by the Medical Board was marked as Ext.X1.

5. After the trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 1 st respondent in driving the stage carriage and being the insurer of the said vehicle, the 3rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.50,361/- and the 3rd respondent was directed to deposit the said amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. This appeal is submitted in such circumstances seeking enhancement of compensation.

6. Heard Smt. Srilakshmi, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. P. Jacob Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent insurance company.

7. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the amount awarded by the tribunal is reasonable or not. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that despite the fact that she sustained serious injuries and permanent disablement as certified in Ext.X1 to the extent of 26%, only a M.A.C.A. No.920/2013 : 4 : meagre amount of Rs.35,000/- was granted towards loss of amenities and inconveniences, and the disability, combined together. The learned counsel also seeks enhancement of compensation on the other heads such as pain and sufferings and other heads as well.

8. After carefully going through the materials placed on record, I find force in the said contention. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, Ext.X1 certificate was issued by the Medical Board after evaluating the physical condition of the appellant and they have certified 26% disability consequent to the injuries sustained to her. The injuries referred to in Ext.A2 discharge certificate includes intertrochanteric fracture (right) she had undergone treatment for a period of 28 days. Considering the nature of injuries and also the fact that the certification of disability was done by the Medical Board which contain a panel of experts, I do not find any justifiable reason to discard the percentage of disability certified. Therefore, the tribunal should have accepted 26% of disability as certified therein.

9. The next aspect for assessing the compensation for disability is the monthly income. No evidence was adduced by the M.A.C.A. No.920/2013 : 5 : appellant claiming that she was a coolie with a monthly income of Rs.4,500/-. Considering the age of the appellant which is 60 years and the year of the accident (2009), I find that the monthly income of Rs.4,500/- claimed by the appellant was reasonable. Thus, while reassessing the compensation for disability with the above revised criteria, the amount would come to Rs.1,26,360/- (4500x12x 9x26/100). The amount already awarded by the tribunal is Rs.35,000/- and hence, the additional amount would come to Rs.91,360/-. Considering the nature of injuries, it can be concluded that, the appellant must have been prevented from pursuing from her avocation atleast for a period of three months. However, no amount was awarded towards loss of earning by the tribunal. Therefore, a sum of Rs.13,500/- is awarded under the said head.

10. The amount awarded by the tribunal towards pain and suffering was only Rs.7,500/- which appears to be on the lower side, considering the nature of injuries and the disability arising therefrom. Therefore, a further sum of Rs.12,500/- is awarded. As regards loss of amenities, the tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.35,000/- under the heads of loss of amenities and disability combined together. Since I have already appropriated Rs.35,000/- M.A.C.A. No.920/2013 : 6 : while assessing the compensation for loss of disability, a separate compensation needs to be granted for loss of amenities. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to fix it as Rs.25,000/-. No amount is awarded by the tribunal towards extra nourishment. Considering the fact that the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for a period of 28 days, an amount of Rs.2,500/- is awarded under the said head. Similarly, bystander expenses awarded by the tribunal was calculated at the rate of Rs.100/- per day. Considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2009, the amount towards the same can be granted at the rate of 150/- per day. This would result in an additional compensation of Rs.1,400/-. Thus, the additional compensation would come to Rs.1,46,260/- (91360+12500+25000+1400+ 2500+ 13500).

11. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The award dated

21.04.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manjeri in OP(MV) No.1542/2009 is hereby modified by granting an additional compensation of Rs.1,46,260/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty six thousand Two hundred sixty only) and the said amount shall be deposited by the 3rd respondent with interest at the rate of 8% per M.A.C.A. No.920/2013 : 7 : annum from the date of petition till realisation. It is further clarified that as this Court has condoned the delay of 254 days in filing the appeal, the 3rd respondent shall be at liberty to exclude the said period while computing the interest on the additional compensation. It is further ordered that the claimant shall furnish the details of the PAN card, Aadhar card and bank details within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to enable the 3rd respondent to make the deposit as ordered above. In case, she fails to furnish the said details, it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. ncd/ Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE