National Insurance Company Ltd v. Martin M.Joseph

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2015/18TH ASHADHA, 1937 MACA.No. 2004 of 2015 () ------------------------- AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 96/2010 of ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 19-03-2015 APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:

---------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD BRANCH OFFICE, URUMPATH BUILDINGS, PUMP JUNCTION ALUVA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

BY ADVS.SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER:

-------------------------------------------------- MARTIN M.JOSEPH S/O JOSEPH, MEKKONATH HOUSE, PATTANAMKARA VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 011. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JJ

K. SURENDRA MOHAN & MARY JOSEPH, JJ.

------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 2004 OF 2015 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 9th July, 2015.

JUDGMENT

Surendra Mohan, J.

The appellant challenges the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Paravur in O.P(MV) 96/2010. The respondent herein who was riding a motor cycle was hit from behind by a mini lorry. He was thrown off and has sustained serious injuries. He was treated as an inpatient initially for a period of 25 days in different hospitals and was discharged with advise to take rest. He was an electrical supervisor having a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. He was married and his wife had no income of her own. Therefore, he had approached the Tribunal seeking compensation for the injuries. The mini lorry that was involved in the accident was

covered by a valid insurance. The appellant is the insurer.

2. Exts.A1 to A10 documents and Ext.X1 disability certificate issued from the Government Medical College Hospital, Kottayam were marked on the side of the injured. Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the respondents. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a total amount of Rs.7,70,000/- with interest thereon at 8% per annum and also costs.

3. According to Adv.Ziyad Rahman who appears for the petitioner, the injured had not produced any evidence to show that his income was Rs.10,000/- per month, as claimed. In the absence of any evidence regarding his income the Tribunal has assumed his income to be Rs.5,000/- and had added 30% to the said amount. Accordingly, Rs.6,500/- was taken as the monthly income of the injured. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the addition of 30% was absolutely uncalled for and unjustified. The addition was made without any basis and therefore, the compensation

that has been computed is excessive and requires to be reduced in appeal.

4. Heard. It is true that, there is no evidence in this case produced, regarding the monthly income of the injured. However, according to him, he was working as an Electrical Supervisor earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month. Considering the fact that, the actual prevailing rate of wages is much more than what has been claimed, it cannot be said that the amount claimed was excessive. It is common knowledge that the services of even a manual labourer is not available unless at least an amount of Rs.750/- is paid as daily wages. The Tribunal has assumed the monthly income of the injured to be Rs.6,500/-. It works out only to less than Rs.250/- per day. We are not satisfied that the income assumed is excessive or irrational in any manner. One should be conscious of the existing reality of the society and the escalation in wages. This is a case in which, the injured who was riding a motor bike was hit from behind and had to suffer

serious injuries. He was only aged 40 years. He has suffered disability and the quality of his life has been lost. Considering the nature of the injuries suffered and the disability caused, we are not satisfied that the compensation awarded is excessive.

For the above reasons the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is confirmed. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge Sd/- MARY JOSEPH Judge jj /True copy/