Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeThis appeal is allowed; enhanced compensation o...

Ajith Kumar v. Shrihari Rao and Sambasiva Rao and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA No. 957 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A. BADHARUDEEN
Judgment Date
2022-08-11
Court Decision / Holding
This appeal is allowed. The appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation to Rs. 45,000 (Rupees Forty Five Thousand only) at the rate of 8% interest from the date of petition till deposit or realization, excluding the period of 116 days for which interest was disallowed by CM No.1166 of 2013 dated 21.07.2022. The insurer is directed to deposit the amount in the appellant’s name within two months from today, after which the appellant may withdraw the amount.
Final Disposition
This appeal is allowed; enhanced compensation of Rs. 45,000 with 8% interest from petition date to deposit date (excluding 116 disallowed days); deposit within two months by insurer; final settlement to be released to appellant.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Ajith Kumar

Respondents

  • Shrihari Rao
  • Sambasiva Rao
  • Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • M. C. Mony

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Latha Susan Cherian

Case Synopsis & Summary

Ajith Kumar challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor’s award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for injuries sustained on 12.12.2006 when he was knocked down by a bus. The Tribunal awarded Rs 2,38,880 with 8% interest on the awarded sum. Ajith Kumar argued that the quantum did not adequately reflect the gravity of his injuries and the prolonged treatment; the evidence shows a femoral fracture treated by IMIL nailing with subsequent removal, multiple facial injuries, tooth loss, and ongoing medical care, all of which justify higher compensation and a longer loss of earnings period. He claimed a monthly income of Rs 5,000 as a lorry driver and eight months for loss of earnings, which should yield a higher amount than what was awarded. The insurer contended that the Tribunal had already fixed reasonable compensation on all heads and, relying on the ratio in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., no further increases were warranted beyond LOE. The High Court considered Exts A1–A14 and B1, recalculated LOE to Rs 28,000 beyond the Tribunal’s grant, and increased pain and suffering by Rs 7,000 and loss of amenities by Rs 10,000, resulting in a total enhanced compensation of Rs 45,000. The appeal is allowed with a direction to deposit within two months; 8% interest from petition date to deposit date, excluding 116 disallowed days, is awarded. The insurer is to comply.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contend that the Tribunal’s quantum did not reflect the true extent of injuries and disability, given multiple injuries and prolonged treatment. The evidence—including a femoral fracture treated by IMIL nailing and subsequent removal, facial injuries and tooth loss—supports a higher loss of earnings for about eight months and greater non-pecuniary compensation. The claimed monthly income of Rs 5,000 yields about Rs 40,000 for eight months; Rs 12,000 awarded by the Tribunal is subtracted to give Rs 28,000 additional LOE. They seek enhancement of pain and suffering (Rs 7,000) and loss of amenities (Rs 10,000) to total Rs 45,000, arguing that Ramachandrappa’s ratio justifies adjusting LOE and other heads in light of evidence of extended care and disability, not to constrict compensation. The appellant also seeks 8% interest from the petition date on the enhanced sum.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents, through the insurer’s counsel, contend that the Tribunal already fixed reasonable compensation and that only LOE should be adjusted in light of Ramachandrappa’s ratio. They assert there is no sufficient basis to increase other heads without disability certificates and emphasize that the evidence does not prove substantive loss of earnings beyond the Tribunal’s calculation. They argue that the existing award reflects a fair assessment under Section 166, and the High Court should refrain from broadening the award beyond the evidence adduced, keeping in mind the policy obligations and ex parte respondents.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.(2011) 13 SCC 236PositiveThe court relies on the ratio in Ramachandrappa to recalibrate loss of earnings and to support enhanced compensation beyond the Tribunal’s award.

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 Ajith Kumar v. Shrihari Rao and Sambasiva Rao and Oriental Insurance Company 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 MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN** **THURSDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1944** **MACA NO. 957 OF 2013** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)NO.319/2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT** ## **CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **AJITH KUMAR** **S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, NALLOOTHARA HOUSE, S. ADUVASSERY P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV M.C.MONY** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :** **1 SHRIHARI RAO, S/O SUBBAIAH, MORNING STAR TRAVELS, OPP. RTC BUS STAND, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH-522403.** - **2 SAMBASIVA RAO** **S/O CHINNAVERAYYA, C/O MORNING STAR TRAVELS, OPP. RTC BUS STAND, GUNTUR, ANDHRAPRADESH-522403** - **3 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,** **BHAVIRISETTIVARI STREET, D.NO.9-1-30, SATTENAPALLI-522403, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH.** **BY ADV LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA No.957 of 2013 **==> picture [46 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ## **MACA No.957 of 2013** ## **-----------------------------------------------** ## **J U D G M E N T** Award in O.P.(MV)No.319 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the petitioner before the Tribunal. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The case of the appellant before the Tribunal is MACA No.957 of 2013 **==> picture [46 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** that he sustained injuries pursuant to an accident occurred on 12.12.2006 at about 9.30 p.m., while he was riding on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL7/AH-1667 through Angamaly-Chalakudy NH road and when he was knocked down by bus bearing Registration No.AP 20 T/7599 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner. He lodged claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and canvassed Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation from respondents 1 to 3. 4. R1 and R2 were set ex parte by the Tribunal. 5. R3 filed written statement disputing the accident and negligence, while admitting policy. Quantum also was disputed. MACA No.957 of 2013 ..4.. 6. The Tribunal marked documentary evidence confined to Exts.A1 to A14 series on the part of the appellant and Ext.B1 marked on the side of the respondents. Thereafter, the Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs.2,38,880/- along with 8% interest as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the amount granted under the head loss of earnings, pain and sufferings as well as loss of amenities in a case involving multiple injuries and prolonged treatment is on the lower side and therefore, reasonable increase under those heads are liable to be granted. He conceded the fact that no disability certificate produced to prove any disability on account of the injuries. MACA No.957 of 2013 **==> picture [46 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** 8. Repelling the submission, the learned counsel for the insurer would submit that apart from recalculating the loss of earnings based on the income following the ratio of the decision in [(2011) 13 SCC 236], **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.,** no amount on other heads to be increased, as the Tribunal granted reasonable compensation on those heads. 9. In this matter, the appellant claimed his income at Rs.5,000/- as a lorry driver, aged 25 years. The accident is of the year 2006. Therefore, the monthly income claimed at Rs.5,000/- as such is accepted for the purpose of re-calculating the loss of earnings. In this matter, as borne out from Ext.A3 wound certificate, the following injuries could be gathered: MACA No.957 of 2013 ..6.. 1. Lacerated wound on the frontal region. 2. Bleeding from the right ear. 3. Bleeding from the nose. 4. Lacerated wound on the chin. 5. Lacerated wound on the supra-labial region. 6. Multiple tooth loss, upper anterior teeth. 7. Contused abrasion on the face and extremities. 10. Apart from that, Ext.A8 discharge summary, Ext.A10 treatment certificate, Ext.A11 subsequent discharge summary etc., would go to show that the appellant underwent treatment for fracture of femur by IMIL nailing and subsequent removal of the same. Therefore, loss of earnings can be increased for a period of eight months at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per MACA No.957 of 2013 **==> picture [46 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** month. Thus, the loss of earnings is as under; 5,000x8 = Rs.40,000/- Out of which, Rs.12,000/- was granted by the Tribunal. Rs.40,000-12,000= **Rs.28,000/-** more is granted under the head loss of earnings. 11. Coming to the head 'pain and sufferings', the Tribunal granted the same at Rs.30,000/- and also Rs.20,000/- under the head 'loss of amenities'. Apart from that, towards loss of three teeth, Rs.7,500/- was granted by the Tribunal. Considering the prolonged treatment and the multiple fractures, **Rs.7,000/-** more is granted under the head 'pain and sufferings' and **Rs.10,000/-** more is granted under the head 'loss of amenities'. In the result, this appeal is allowed. It is MACA No.957 of 2013 ..8.. ordered that the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation to the tune of **Rs.45,000/-** (Rupees Forty Five Thousand only) at the rate of 8% interest granted by the Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation excluding the period of 116 days wherein, grant of interest was specifically disallowed by the order in C.M.Application No.1166 of 2013 dated 21.07.2022. The insurance company is directed to deposit the same in the name of the appellant within two months from today. On deposit, the appellant can release the same. Sd/- ## **A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE** rkj