Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAppeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; ...

Abraham Palathinkal and Addl. Appellants 2 to 4 v. V.S. Lalu and Others

Case / Petition Number:MACA No.2448 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A. Badhrudeen
Judgment Date
2022-06-07
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal allowed. Enhanced compensation for the additional appellants 2 to 4 to Rs.2,84,740 (the Tribunal’s Rs.2,23,740 plus an additional Rs.61,000). The 3rd respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced amount in equal proportion in the names of the additional appellants within two months from today, after which the appellants would be entitled to release the funds.
Final Disposition
Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; deposit directed within two months; continued entitlement of interest at the same rate as Tribunal.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Abraham Palathinkal
  • Sosamma Abraham
  • Sony Abraham Palathikal
  • Sophy Abraham

Respondents

  • V.S. Lalu
  • The Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
  • The Kerala State Insurance Department, Pathanamthitta

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • V.V. Shaji
  • • Susanth Shaji

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. Denny Devassy, Sr. GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This MACA arises from an award dated 31.07.2013 in OP(MV) No.308/2009 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, which awarded Rs.2,23,740 with interest to the claimants following a motor accident on 11.11.2008 involving police jeep KL-01-C-3421. The appellant, aged 74, claimed higher compensation asserting his income was understated; he had worked with M/s Integrated Finance Pvt. Ltd. and earned more than the Tribunal’s estimate. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died and his legal heirs were brought on record as additional appellants 2 to 4. The Tribunal relied on Exts A1–A10 and concluded with an award of Rs.2,23,740. The High Court, considering the evidence and invoking the Supreme Court’s Ramachandrappa ratio, re-assessed several heads of compensation. It fixed monthly income at Rs.6,500 and calculated four months’ loss of earnings at Rs.26,000 (with a note that Rs.14,000 more than the Tribunal’s figure was granted under this head). For loss of disability income (20% disability with a 12-year multiplier), it arrived at Rs.78,000; the Tribunal had granted Rs.36,000, so Rs.42,000 more was awarded. The court refused enhancement under loss of amenities but added Rs.5,000 for pain and suffering. The net outcome was an enhanced sum of Rs.61,000 beyond the Tribunal’s award, making total compensation Rs.2,84,740 with the same interest rate. The 3rd respondent was directed to deposit the amount in equal shares in the names of the additional appellants within two months from today and upon deposit, the appellants would be entitled to release the funds.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income at a low figure (Rs.3,000) and failing to take into account the actual earning capacity of the deceased. Relying on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236, they argued for reassessment of income to Rs.6,500 per month, applying a four-month loss of earnings and re-evaluating the heads of loss of disability income and pain and suffering, while disputing any enhancement under loss of amenities. They urged that the enhanced compensation should take into account a realistic income and the nature of injuries (distal radial fracture and femur neck fracture) sustained in the accident.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that there was no cogent evidence of higher income or capacity, and that the Tribunal’s fixation of Rs.3,000 was defensible given the evidence. They admitted the insurance policy but argued against extra heads of compensation beyond the Tribunal’s award, maintaining the multiplier and dissociating from any liability to increase earnings beyond the evidence on record. They also stressed timely deposit and that the policy coverage remained intact.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.(2011) 13 SCC 236PositiveCited to justify adopting the ratio for computing income in personal injury claims, leading to a higher monthly income and reassessment of damages.

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 Abraham Palathinkal and Addl. Appellants 2 to 4 v. V.S. Lalu and Others 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 MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN** **TUESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1944** **MACA NO. 2448 OF 2013** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) No.308/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT** ## **CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** 1 ABRAHAM PALATHINKAL, S/O.ABRAHAM VARGHESE, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, CHATHAMALA, THIRUVALLA P.O. [DIED] *ADDL. APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 IMPLEADED *2 SOSAMMA ABRAHAM, AGED 86 YEARS, W/O. LATE ABRAHAM PALATHINKAL, PALATHINKAL, CHATHAMALA ROAD, THIRUVALLA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN- 689 101. *3 SONY ABRAHAM PALATHINKAL, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. LATE ABRAHAM PALATHINKAL, PALATHINKAL, CHATHAMALA ROAD, THIRUVALLA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN- 689 101. *4 SOPHY ABRAHAM, AGED 59 YEARS, D/O. LATE ABRAHAM PALATHINKAL, PALATHINKAL, CHATHAMALA ROAD, THIRUVALLA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN- 689 101. *ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 AS PER ORDER DATED 01/04/2022 IN I.A 1/2022 IN MACA 2448/2013. BY ADVS. V.V.SHAJI SUSANTH SHAJI ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** 1 V.S.LALU, S/O.SANKARAN, POLICE CONSTABLE, TRAFFIC UNIT, NEAR DY.S.P.OFFICE, THIRUVALLA P.O., PIN-689 101. 2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN-695 001. ## **M.A.C.A No.2448 of 2013** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 3 THE KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 645. BY ADV. SRI.DENNY DEVASSY, SR. GP THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 07.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **M.A.C.A No.2448 of 2013** 3 ## **JUDGMENT** This appeal arises out of award dated 31.07.2013 in O.P.(M.V) No.308/2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. 2. Respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal. 3. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant died and his legal heirs brought on record as additional appellants 2 to 4. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, Adv.Susanth Shaji and learned Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 3. 5. The appellant, who was aged 74 years, alleged to have sustained injuries arising out of a motor accident occurred on 11.11.2008 at about 9:45 a.m, had filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and canvassed Rs.3 lakh as compensation attributing ## **M.A.C.A No.2448 of 2013** 4 negligence on the part of the 1[st] respondent, who had driven police jeep bearing registration No.KL-01-C-3421 on the date of accident. Specific case put up by the appellant before the Tribunal was that the accident was the contribution of rash and negligent driving on the part of the 1[st] respondent. 6. Respondents 2 and 3 filed joint written statement and denied negligence. Valid policy to the vehicle issued by the Kerala State Insurance Department was admitted while disputing claims under various heads. 7. The Tribunal ventured the matter relying on Exts.A1 to A10 marked on the side of the appellant. Finally the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,23,740/- as compensation with 7.5% interest. 8. While assailing the said award, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the income fixed by the Tribunal at the rate of Rs.3,000/- in this matter is **M.A.C.A No.2448 of 2013** 5 low. He argued that the appellant though he was aged 74 years at the time of accident, was working in M/s.Integrated Finance Pvt. Ltd. and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. However, no cogent evidence to substantiate this contention, is available before this Court. The learned Government Pleader also pointed out absence of evidence in this regard, while repelling the contention. 9. However, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, at a later point of time, the monthly income of the appellant can be fixed at Rs.6,500/- following the ratio in _**Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal**_ _**Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.**_ : **(2011) 13 SCC 236,** where the Apex Court fixed the income of a coolie at Rs.4,500/-, during the year 2004. Accordingly, the compensation granted by the Tribunal requires reassessment. 10. Here, the Tribunal granted Rs.12,000/- ## **M.A.C.A No.2448 of 2013** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** towards 'loss of earnings' for the period of four months (3000x4). Taking monthly income @ Rs.6,500/-, I am inclined to grant 'loss of earnings' for a period of 4 months @ Rs.6,500/- per month. Thus, the appellant is entitled to get Rs.26,000/-. Thus, **Rs.14,000/-** more is granted under the head 'loss of earnings'. 11. Since the disability fixed by the Tribunal as 20% and the multiplier applied are not in dispute, the ‘loss of disability income’ required to be re-calculated thus, 6,500x12x5x20%= 78,000/- Out of which, Rs.36,000/- was granted by the Tribunal. Thus, the appellant is entitled to the balance of **Rs.42,000/-** more under the head of 'loss of disability income'. 12. Highlighting the injuries viz., fracture (L) distal redius and fracture neck of (R) femur, the learned counsel pressed for ## **M.A.C.A No.2448 of 2013** 7 granting more compensation under the heads 'loss of amenities' and 'pain and sufferings'. The Tribunal granted Rs.30,000/- each under these heads. Considering the injuries, I am inclined to grant **Rs.5,000/-** more under the head 'pain and sufferings' while disallowing any enhancement under the head 'loss of amenities'. 13. In the result, this appeal is allowed. It is held that the additional appellants 2 to 4 (who got impleaded as legal heirs of original appellant) are entitled to get Rs.2,84,740/- as compensation out of which Rs.2,23,740/- was granted by the Tribunal and the balance amount of **Rs.61,000/-** (Rupees Sixty One Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Only) is granted as enhanced compensation with the same rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, payable by the 3[rd] respondent, from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation. ## **M.A.C.A No.2448 of 2013** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** The 3[rd] respondent is directed to deposit the amount in equal proportion in the name of the additional appellants 2 to 4 within two months from today. On deposit, the additional appellants 2 to 4 are entitled to release the same. Sd/- ## **A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE.** ww