IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/3RD BHADRA, 1939 MACA.No. 1119 of 2011 ( ) AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 1878/2005 of M.A.C.T.,PERUMBAVOOR DATED 25-03-2011 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER IN OPMV 1878/2005: KARTHU, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.SIVAN, KANNAN KULATH HOUSE, NEAR CHIRA, KARAKKTTU KUNNU, MEKAD.P.O., NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE, ALUVA. BY ADV. SMT.ANUPAMA JOHNY RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT NO.3 IN OPMV 1878/2005: THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., 5/1/338, ANNAOORNA BUILDING, OOTTY MAIN AROAD, METTUPALAYAM-641301. BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jg-2/9 C.T.RAVIKUMAR & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ. MACA No.1119 of 2011 Dated this the 25th day of August, 2017. JUDGMENT
[ENTITY], J.
This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 25.03.2011 in [CASE NUMBER] passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. The petitioner therein is the appellant herein. The appellant/petitioner sustained injuries in a motor accident occurred on 13.01.2005 at 5 p.m., while walking through the northern side of Aluva-Angamaly National Highway from east to west. When the appellant reached near Mar Athanasius High School, Nedumbassery, she was knocked down by the car bearing Reg.No.TN-41/Z-6797, driven by the second respondent. On sustaining severe injuries, she was initially taken to Little Flower Hospital, Angamaly and from there she was referred to Medical College Hospital, Thrissur. She had to remain as an inpatient for a period of 378 days. The injuries sustained by her resulted in permanent disability. It is in the said circumstances that she filed the said claim petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] seeking a compensation of `5 lakhs.
2. As per the impugned award, the Tribunal had granted an amount of `3,29,960/- towards compensation with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. It is seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation granted as above that the captioned appeal has been preferred.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company.
4. The sole respondent herein was the third respondent before the Tribunal. It is submitted by both sides that there is no dispute regarding the cause of the accident as also the liability of the respondent insurance company to indemnify the insured owner of the offending vehicle. In short, the only question to be considered in this appeal is as to whether the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation.
5. Before the Tribunal, one of the Members of the Medical Board, who issued Ext.X1 disability certificate in respect of the appellant/petitioner, was examined as PW1. On the side of the appellant/petitioner, Exts.A1 to A10 were got marked. Ext.B1 is the copy of the policy certificate pertaining to the offending vehicle. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondents before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had passed the award as aforesaid after appreciating the evidence on record and rival contentions.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is not one commensurating with the injuries sustained by the appellant. Various grounds have been raised by the appellant to assail the award. It is submitted that disregarding the averments that the appellant/petitioner was a coolie and was earning `5,000/- per month, the Tribunal had fixed the monthly income of the appellant/petitioner as `3,000/-, notionally. It is also submitted that, essentially, the Tribunal had fixed the monthly income notionally as above, treating her as a housewife. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that even if the appellant/petitioner is treated only as a housewife, there is absolutely no reason to limit her monthly income to `3,000/-, taking into account her age at the time of the accident as also the year of the accident. From Ext.X1, it would reveal that the injuries sustained by the appellant/petitioner had resulted in permanent disability of 54.4%. Despite the incurrence of such high degree of permanent disability, the Tribunal had granted only an amount of `20,000/- towards loss of amenities, it is submitted. The learned counsel would further contend that the nature of the disabilities, as vividly explained in para 12 of the impugned award, would reveal the inadequacy of the amount granted thereunder. That apart, it is also submitted that the Tribunal had granted only meagre amounts towards transportation to hospital, extra nourishment as also bystander's expenses. In such circumstances, modification of the compensation granted under various heads is inevitable, it is submitted.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company submitted that a mere glance of the schedule of compensation granted would reveal that the appellant/petitioner was adequately compensated by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that though the appellant/petitioner had averred in the claim petition that she was a coolie and was earning `5,000/- per month, she had not even chosen to mount the box to give evidence. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Tribunal had erred in treating her as a housewife and fixing the monthly income as `3,000/-, it is submitted. In short, the contention is that no appellate interference is called for.
8. Having given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions, we are of the considered view that an interference with the quantum of compensation is required in this appeal. Firstly, we will consider the question whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing the monthly income, notionally, and even if it is answered in the affirmative, the next question is whether the fixation of the monthly income as `3,000/- invites interference? True that in the claim petition it is averred that the appellant was a coolie and was earning `5,000/- per month. We are not oblivious of the position that as regards coolie workers, it would not be possible to adduce cogent evidence regarding the occupation and income. But, at the same time, there is absolutely no reason for the appellant/petitioner for not mounting the box to give evidence in support of her contentions. When that be the case, we cannot find fault with the Tribunal in treating the appellant/petitioner as a housewife and fixing the monthly income, notionally, for calculation purpose.
9. Now, we will consider the question as to whether the fixation of monthly income, notionally, as `3,000/-, invites any interference. Essentially, in the case of a housewife, it is the service rendered by her to the family that is to be equated in terms of money, for fixing the monthly income for calculation purpose. In the decision in [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Apex Court had fixed the monthly income of housewives between the age group of 34 to 59 as `3,000/-. The accident involved in the case of [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra) had occurred in the year 1989. This Court in [PRECEDENT] followed the decision of the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra) and fixed the monthly income of a housewife as `3,000/- for the purpose of calculating compensation. The accident involved in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra) had occurred on 24.08.2002. In the contextual situation, we are of the view that it is not inappropriate to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT]. In Para 23 of the said decision, it is stated thus:-