High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-07-31Appeal allowed in part

ABDUL AZEEZ v UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 108 OF 2018

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Shoba Annamma Eapen
Judgment Date: 2024-07-31
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed in part. The High Court modified several heads by re-fixing notional income to ₹8,500 per month and recalculating (notably loss of earnings, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and permanent disability), resulting in an additional ₹1,45,010 over the tribunal’s award. The insurer is to deposit the enhanced amount with interest at 8% per annum and costs within two months from receipt of a certified copy of this judgment; the claimant must provide PAN, AADHAAR, and bank details for deposit. The enhanced amount will be disbursed in due course, noting that the enhanced compensation will not carry interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

ABDUL AZEEZ

Respondents

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SMT.K.V.RESHMI

Counsels for Respondents

• P.K.MANOJKUMAR

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, hears MACA No.108 of 2018 filed by Abdul Azeez against United India Insurance Co. Ltd., arising from a motor accident on 29.09.2012 involving his motorcycle KL-56-B-1350 and a bus KL-13-L-4779. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara, awarded ₹4,11,218 as compensation to the third respondent insurer, holding the bus driver negligent and the insurer liable under various heads: loss of earnings, transport, hospitalization, medical bills, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and permanent disability. The appellant challenged several heads and the quantum, contending that the notional income should be ₹8,500 per month (per Ramachandrappa) rather than ₹5,000, and that the loss of earnings for 12 months, along with enhanced amounts for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, should be higher. He also argued that permanent disability compensation, computed with future prospects, ought to be recalculated using the higher notional income in line with Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma. The High Court, while not disturbing other heads, refixed the notional income at ₹8,500 and recalculated several heads, granting an additional ₹1,45,010 over the tribunal award and directing deposit within two months with 8% interest and costs. The appeal was allowed in part, with enhanced compensation to be disbursed to the claimant.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional monthly income/Income replacement approach (Ramachandrappa)
Future prospects in compensation (Pranay Sethi)
Pernal disability computation using multiplier and percentage (Sarla Verma)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant argues that the tribunal erred by fixing the notional monthly income at ₹5,000 instead of ₹8,500 as guided by Ramachandrappa. With ₹8,500 as notional income, loss of earnings for 12 months should be ₹1,02,000 (instead of the tribunal’s ₹54,000 deduction to ₹48,000 net). He seeks higher awards for pain and suffering (₹40,000) and loss of amenities (₹25,000) reflecting the injuries evidenced (Ext.A2). With a refixation of income, permanent disability should be recalculated using the principles in Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma, yielding ₹1,98,900 (₹8,500 × 12 × 13 × 15%). The Tribunal’s 30% future prospects should not overshadow these precedents. Overall, the appeal seeks substantial enhancement and recalculation in line with established SC guidelines.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer contends that the Tribunal correctly found negligence and liability. It argues that notional income fixation and the calculation heads were properly assessed and that the High Court should not disturb the award except for immaterial adjustments. It emphasizes that the order already provides a consonant structure for compensation and that the existing heads (other than those contested) are just and reasonable. The insurer submits that any enhancement beyond the Tribunal’s award should be limited and justifiable under the evidence, and that the 8% interest provision and deposit timelines are appropriate.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.	[(2011) 13 SCC 236]	Positive	Court followed Ramachandrappa for determining notional monthly income (₹8,500) rather than ₹5,000.
National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	[2017(4) KLT 662(SC)]	Positive	Used to justify calculation of permanent disability with future prospects per Pranay Sethi.
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	[2010(2) KLT 802(SC)]	Positive	Applied guidelines for permanent disability calculation consistent with Sarla Verma.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against ABDUL AZEEZ v UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN WEDNESDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1946 MACA NO. 108 OF 2018** **OPMV NO.202 OF 2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,** ## **VATAKARA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 51 YEARS S/O.KUNHAMMED, AGED 51 YEARS, VELICHIKULANGARA HOUSE, ERAVATTOR AMSOM DESOM, ERAVATOOR P.O.,PERAMBRA VIA, KOZHIKODE-673 525.** **BY ADV SMT.K.V.RESHMI** ## **RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:** **UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE, WHITE LINES BUILDINGS, KALLAI ROAD,KOZHIKODE-673 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.** **BY ADV P.K.MANOJKUMAR** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 31.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA NO. 108 OF 2018 ..2.. ## JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.202 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara. The respondent herein was the third respondent before the tribunal. 2. The case of the appellant/claimant is that on 29.09.2012, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-56-B-1350, a bus bearing Reg.No.KL-13-L-4779 owned and driven by the first and second respondents before the tribunal respectively, hit against the motorcycle ridden by him, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of 6,00,000/-.₹ 3. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the tribunal. The respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on the side of MACA NO. 108 OF 2018 **==> picture [31 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** the appellant/claimant. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of 4,11,218/- as compensation₹ under different heads against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement under the following heads; 5.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant claimed that he was earning 25,000/- per month, the tribunal has fixed the₹ notional monthly income at 5,000/-, but, as per the decision₹ in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the notional monthly income of the appellant ought to have been fixed at ₹8,500/-. Following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), MACA NO. 108 OF 2018 **==> picture [31 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** I deem it appropriate to fix the notional monthly income of the appellant at 8,500/-.₹ 5.2. Loss of earnings - Though the tribunal fixed the notional income of the appellant at 5,000/-, only 4,500/- was₹ ₹ considered by the tribunal for assessing compensation towards loss of earnings for a period of 12 months, which cannot be sustainable. Since the notional monthly income of the appellant is refixed at 8,500/-, on recalculating the₹ compensation towards loss of earnings for a period of 12 months, the appellant will be entitled to get a total compensation of 1,02,000/- under this head. Thus, after₹ deducting 54,000/- awarded by the tribunal, the additional₹ compensation towards loss of earnings would come to ₹48,000/-. 5.3. Pain and suffering - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant claimed 40,000/-₹ towards pain and suffering, the tribunal awarded only ₹20,000/-. Though there is no discussion in the impugned award regarding the injuries sustained by the appellant, Ext.A2 wound certificate, which is handed over to me by the MACA NO. 108 OF 2018 **==> picture [31 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** learned counsel for the appellant, shows that the appellant sustained serious injuries. Hence, considering the injuries sustained, I am inclined to grant the appellant an amount of ₹40,000/- as total compensation towards pain and suffering. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of 20,000/- as compensation towards pain and₹ suffering. 5.4. Loss of amenities - Though the appellant claimed an amount of 25,000/- under this head, the tribunal awarded₹ only an amount of 10,000/-,₹ which, according to the appellant, is on the lower side. Considering the injuries sustained by the appellant and the sufferings that he might have undergone, I deem it appropriate to award a total compensation of 25,000/- towards loss of amenities. Thus, the₹ appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of ₹15,000/- towards loss of amenities. - 5.5. Permanent disability The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer submits that the tribunal has considered 30% future prospects while awarding compensation towards permanent disability, which is on the MACA NO. 108 OF 2018 **==> picture [31 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** higher side considering the 15% disability taken by the tribunal for assessing compensation. However, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that she is satisfied with the refixed notional monthly income of 8,500/-. Since the notional₹ income of the appellant is refixed, the compensation towards permanent disability has to be recalculated. Thus, following the decisions in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the appellant will be entitled to get a total compensation of 1,98,900/- (8500 x 12 x₹ 13 x 15%) towards permanent disability. Hence, there will be an additional amount of ₹62,010/under the head of permanent disability. 6. Though the appellant claimed enhancement of compensation under other heads, on a perusal of the records available, I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads since it appears to be just and reasonable. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows; MACA NO. 108 OF 2018 ..7.. |Sl. No.|Head of Claim|Amount claimed (in ) ₹|Amount awarded by the tribunal (in ) ₹|Modified in appeal (in ) ₹|Total compensation (in ) ₹| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |1.|Loss of earnings|100000|54000|48000|102000| |2.|Transport to hospital|10000|1750||1750| |3.|Hospitalization for 37 days|20000|25900||25900| |4.|Medical bills|200000|162678||162678| |5.|Pain and sufferings|40000|20000|20000|40000| |6.|Loss of amenities|25000|10000|15000|25000| |7.|Permanent disability|250000|136890|62010|198900| ||Total||411218|145010|556228| Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant/claimant is awarded an additional compensation of ₹1,45,010/- (Rupees one lakh forty five thousand and ten only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount together with interest and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a MACA NO. 108 OF 2018 **==> picture [31 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** certified copy of this judgment. The claimant shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and bank details before the respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellant at the earliest in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that the enhanced compensation will not carry interest for the period of delay of 363 days in filing the appeal. SD/- ## SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE bka/-