High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-07-27Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; ...

Amal V. Kumar s/o Vidyadhar Nair v. C.K. Sulaiman Kunju and 2 Others

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 377 OF 2010

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Basant Balaji
Judgment Date: 2022-07-27
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed. Enhanced total compensation is Rs.6,68,992 (Rs.6,28,992 for permanent disability + Rs.40,000 for future treatment). The appellant is entitled to an enhancement of Rs.2,34,672 over the Tribunal’s award of Rs.4,34,320. Interest at 7% from the date of petition applies to the enhanced portion; existing amounts, if any, paid shall be set off. Bank details must be provided within one month for NEFT/RTGS transfer; if not provided, no interest will accrue on the enhanced amount after that period. The enhanced future treatment amount will not carry interest. The appeal filed with delay of 552 days is addressed; if ultimately allowed, the 552-day period is excluded from interest.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; interest and payment modalities specified; 552-day delay excluded from interest for the enhanced amount.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Amal V.Kumar s/o Vidyadhar Nair, Vettikattethu Surabhi, Kudamukka, Mamood P.O., Pathanamthitta (Dist)

Respondents

C.K. Sulaiman Kunju
Zeena Manzil
Thankarajan Aniyan (Driver) S/O Thankachan
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Punalur

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Bimal K. Nath
• Sri. S. Jamal
• Sri. E.M. Sunil Kumar
• Sri. Sreevalsan.V

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. P. Jacob Mathew
• Sri. Mathews Jacob Sr.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA 377 of 2010) arising from an award under O.P.(MV) No.653 of 2001 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. The appellant, then aged 22, sustained serious injuries in a road accident on 15.02.2001 when a jeep collided with his scooter. The Tribunal awarded Rs.6,95,320 with 7.5% interest, but the appellant challenged the quantum. The principal grounds of challenge were (i) the income adopted by the Tribunal (Rs.4,000/month) was too low; the appellant argues a self-employed earnings of Rs.9,000/month; (ii) the tribunal applied a multiplier of 17, while Sarla Verma guidelines require 18 for a claimant of around 22 years; (iii) 52% permanent disability per Ext.A14 and a 40% future prospects addition for a self-employed person; (iv) insufficient provision for future treatment. The medical evidence and Ext.A14 were relied upon to claim higher disability-based compensation; Annexes A1–A4 indicate substantial future treatment needs. The High Court recalculates: notional income Rs.5,600 (Rs.4,000 + 40%); multiplier 18; permanent disability Rs.6,28,992 and future treatment Rs.40,000, totaling Rs.6,68,992. The appeal is allowed; enhanced compensation Rs.2,34,672 over the Tribunal’s award, with 7% interest from the petition date; future treatment carries no interest; payment by NEFT/RTGS within a month; 552-day delay to be excluded from interest.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sarla Verma guidelines on multiplier and future prospects

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant argues that the Tribunal erred in adopting a monthly income of Rs.4,000 instead of Rs.9,000 based on self-employment, and in applying a multiplier of 17 instead of 18 per Sarla Verma. With 52% disability, notional income of Rs.5,600 (including 40% future prospects) should be used, yielding Rs.6,28,992 for permanent disability. The appellant also seeks Rs.40,000 for future treatment (Annex A1–A4 indicate substantial needs). The Tribunal’s other heads are deemed reasonable; additional sums would be warranted for disability and future care beyond the Tribunal’s award, and delivery of the enhanced amount should be by NEFT/RTGS with interest details as stated.

Contentions of Respondents

The judgment does not elaborate the respondents’ detailed written submissions. It notes that the Tribunal’s awards on other heads were reasonable and no interference is warranted with those heads; the primary thrust of the appeal rests on the quantum for disability and future treatment.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another	[(2009) 6 SCC 12]	Positive	Cited and applied for the multiplier (18) and the future-prospects principle consistent with Sarla Verma guidelines.

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 Amal V. Kumar s/o Vidyadhar Nair v. C.K. Sulaiman Kunju and 2 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 BASANT BALAJI** **WEDNESDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1944 MACA NO. 377 OF 2010** **OPMV 653/2001 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,PATHANAMTHITTA / I ADDL. M.A.C.T. APPELLANT/S:** AMAL V.KUMAR S/O.VIDYADHARAN NAIR, VETTIKATTETHU SURABHI,, KUDAMUKKA, MAMMOOD PO, PATHANAMTHITTA (DIST). BY ADVS.SRI.BIMAL K.NATH SRI.S.JAMAL SRI.E.M.SUNIL KUMAR SRI.SREEVALSAN.V ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 C.K.SULAIMAN KUNJU AND 2 OTHERS ZEENA MANZIL, ALAYAMON P.O., ANCHAL, PUNALUR. 2 THANKARAJAN ANIYAN DRIVER S/O.THANKACHAN, KALLUVETTAMKUZHIYIL VEEDU,, POOYAPPALLY. 3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, PUNALUR. (INSURER). BY ADVS. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **MACA NO. 377 OF 2010** -2- ## **JUDGMENT** (Dated this the 27[th] day of July 2022) This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P.(MV) No.653 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. 2. On 15.02.2001 at about 8.00 a.m., while the appellant was travelling in a scooter bearing registration No.KL-3/A-8715 through Adoor-Kaippattoor Road with his sister, a jeep bearing registration No.KL-2/E-8677 which came into opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, hit the scooter and as a result of which the appellant sustained serious injuries. He was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Adoor from where he was **MACA NO. 377 OF 2010** -3- referred to Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and treated there as inpatient. The appellant suffered injuries such as head injury, multiple fracture frontal parietal bone, montage fracture right type I and cervical spine fracture etc. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep. Hence prayed for the compensation. 3. The Tribunal on an apprehension of Exts.A1 to A33, awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,95,320/- with 7.5% interest from the date of petition till realisation. 4. The main contention put forward by the counsel for the appellant is that the income taken as Rs.4,000/- by the Tribunal is on the lower side, which ought to have been taken as Rs.9,000/- per month, as he was having business and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. The Tribunal took the **MACA NO. 377 OF 2010** -4- income as Rs.4,000/- since there was no documentary evidence to prove that he was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. It is seen from Ext.A14 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board that he has sustained serious injuries and physical disability is 52%. Due to the accident, the right hand of the appellant is completely paralysed. The Tribunal, taking the percentage of disability at 52%, taking the monthly income as Rs.4,000/- and multiplier as 17 awarded the compensation for loss of permanent disability. It is seen that the appellant was aged 22 years at the time of accident and going by the decision reported in **Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 SCC 12]** 's case, the multiplier is to be taken as 18, but the Tribunal has taken it as 17. The permanent disability as **MACA NO. 377 OF 2010** -5- stated by the Medical Board in Ext.A14, is accepted. Since the appellant being self employed below 40 years, 40% more as future prospects to be added in computing the permanent disability compensation. Accordingly, the notional monthly income would come Rs.5,600/(4000+40%). Hence the compensation for permanent disability can be worked out as 5,600 x 12 x 18 x 52/100 which comes to Rs.6,28,992/-. The Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.4,24,320/-. 5. With regard to the compensation for future treatment, as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/-. Before this court, the appellant has produced Annexures.A1 to A4 medical certificates procured by the appellant after the pronouncement of the judgment by the Tribunal. In **MACA NO. 377 OF 2010** -6- Annex.A1, it is stated that nearly Rs.50,000/- is needed for future treatment. Annex.A2 shows that he was under treatment from 13.8.2009 to 21.8.2009. Annex.A3 shows that he had undergone medical treatment in Christian Medical College Hospital, Panthalam. Taking note of the fact that the appellant had 52% physical permanent disability and the right hand of the appellant is completely paralyzed, I am enhancing the compensation for future treatment to Rs.40,000/-. Less Rs.10,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal under the head. 6. As far as the other heads are concerned, reasonable and just compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal and warrants no interference. Hence, the appellant is entitled to enhancement of compensation as follows: **MACA NO. 377 OF 2010** -7- |Head of claim|Allowed by Tribunal<br>(Rs.)|Total enhanced<br>compensation (Rs.)| |---|---|---| |Compensation for<br>permanent disability|4,24,320|6,28,992| |Compensation for<br>future treatment|10,000|40,000| |Total|4,34,320|6,68,992| |Amount enhanced- 6,68,992-4,34,320 = 2,34,672/=||| In the result, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs. **2,34,672/- (Rupees two lakh thirty four thousand six hundred seventy two only)** with 7% interest from the date of petition. If any amounts have already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. The claimants shall produce the details of the Bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and amount shall be transferred to the Bank account directly through NEFT/RTGS mode, within a period of one **MACA NO. 377 OF 2010** -8- month thereafter. If the Bank account is not furnished within the time stipulated, it is made clear that no interest shall run on the enhanced amount after the period stipulated by this Court. It is made clear that the compensation for future treatment granted in this appeal, will not carry the interest stated above. The appeal was filed with a delay of 552 days. This Court, while allowing C.M. Application No.1 of 2010, ordered that if ultimately the appeal is allowed and the compensation is enhanced, the appellant would be disentitled for the interest for a period of 552 days. Hence, for the enhanced compensation, the appellant would not be entitled for interest for the period of 552 days. **sd BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE** _dl/_