Anoop Varghese v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: S. Siri Jagan
K. Ramakrishnan
Judgment Date: 2013-06-10
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is partly allowed. The multiplier is set to 18, increasing the loss of earning capacity to Rs.5,40,000. Attendant’s charges are enhanced to Rs.50,000. No increase is made to pain and suffering or loss of amenities. An additional Rs.55,000 is awarded, with 9% interest from the date of the claim petition, to be deposited within two months. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Final Disposition: Disposed of (appeal partly allowed with modified award).

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

ANOOP VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, 26 YEARS, PALIKUDATH HOUSE, PEECHANIKADU, PULIYANAM P.O. ANGAMALY.

Respondents

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, KAP COMMERCIAL CENTRE, R.S.ROAD ALUVA - 683 101.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. V.K. Gopalakrishna Pillai
• Sri. Gopakumar G. (Aluva)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Rajesh Thomas

Case Synopsis & Summary

Anoop Varghese, a 22-year-old who became paraplegic due to a motor vehicle accident caused by a negligent driver insured with United India Insurance, challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal’s award before the Kerala High Court in MACA No. 143 of 2009. The Tribunal awarded compensation under multiple heads: loss of earnings Rs.25,000; treatment expenses Rs.82,950; transportation Rs.5,000; pain and suffering Rs.50,000; loss of amenities Rs.50,000; clothing damage Rs.250; attendant’s charges Rs.25,000; extra nourishment Rs.10,000; disability Rs.5,10,000; total Rs.7,58,200. The appellant contended that, given his age and 100% disability, the multiplier should be 18 (per the Supreme Court’s Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation), not 17, and that lifelong assistance justifies higher attendant costs and enhanced compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenities. The Insurance Company argued for maintaining the Tribunal’s quantum. The High Court held that the correct multiplier for a 22-year-old is 18 and recalculated loss of earning capacity to Rs.5,40,000 (Rs.2,500 x 12 x 18). Attendant’s charges were raised to Rs.50,000, but no enhancement was made to pain and suffering or loss of amenities. The appellant was awarded an additional Rs.55,000 with 9% interest from the date of filing, to be deposited within two months, and the appeal disposed of accordingly.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Multiplier principle for assessing loss of earning capacity (Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation)
Not to award double compensation when 100% loss of earning capacity is already compensated
Lifelong attendant care may justify higher attendant charges

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal misapplied the multiplier for a 22-year-old, relying on Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation to fix an 18-year multiplier, resulting in a lower loss of earning capacity. He also seeks higher lifelong attendant charges and increased compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, asserting the award should reflect his age and permanent disability.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer defends the Tribunal’s award, arguing no basis to depart from the calculated figures and that the enhancement sought is unwarranted; the existing heads and multipliers in the Tribunal order are adequate and in line with established jurisprudence.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	2010(2) KLT 802 (SC)	Positive	The court applied the multiplier principle from Sarla Varma, adopting an 18 multiplier for a 22-year-old.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN** **& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/20TH JYAISHTA 1935** ## **MACA.No. 143 of 2009 ( )** **----------------------------------OPMV 116/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR. ..........** ## **APPELLANT(S)/(PETITIONER IN OP(MV) 116/04):** **------------------------------------------------------------------** **ANOOP VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, 26 YEARS, PALIKUDATH HOUSE, PEECHANIKADU, PULIYANAM P.O. ANGAMALY.** **BY ADVS.SRI.V.K.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA)** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/(RESPONDENT NO.3 IN OP(MV) 116/04):** **----------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, KAP COMMERCIAL CENTRE, R.S.ROAD ALUVA - 683 101.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH THOMAS** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **tss** ## **S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.** --------------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.143 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------------------Dated this, the 10[th] day of June 2013 ## Judgment ## Siri Jagan, J. The appellant herein became a paraplegic, on account of an accident caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle, insured with the respondent. The appellant filed OP (MV) No.116/04 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, seeking compensation for the injuries and consequent disabilities suffered by him. After finding negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, the Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads as follows : |**_Loss of earnings_**|**_Rs.25,000/-_**| |---|---| |**_Treatment expenses_**|**_Rs.82,950/-_**| |**_Transportation expenses_**|**_Rs.5,000/-_**| |**_Pain and suffering_**|**_Rs.50,000/-_**| |**_Loss of amenities_**|**_Rs.50,000/-_**| |**_Damage to clothings_**|**_Rs.250/-_**| |**_Attendant's charges_**|**_Rs.25,000/-_**| |**_Extra nourishment_**|**_Rs.10,000/-_**| |**_Disability_**|**_Rs.5,10,000/-_**| |**_Total_**|**_Rs.7,58,200/-_**| MACA No.143/09 2 2. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed this appeal, seeking enhanced compensation. The counsel for the appellant points out that the Tribunal has accepted the fact that at the time of accident, the appellant was 22 years old and the Tribunal also accepted that on account of the accident, he became disabled 100%, as he became a paraplegic. The Tribunal accepted the monthly salary of the appellant as Rs.2,500/-. Despite the same, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of only 17. According to the appellant, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in **Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation** (2010(2) KLT 802 (SC), the multiplier applicable to a 22 year old person is 18. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to an additional compensation, calculated on that basis, is the first contention. 3. The second contention is that since for the rest of his life, the appellant would require the assistnace of an attendant to help him in all his personal needs, the attendant's MACA No.143/09 3 charges of Rs.25,000/- is palpably inadequate. The appellant also claims enhancement of compensation payable under the head _pain and sufferings_ and _loss of amenities_ as well. 4. We have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company also. 5. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the appellant, as per the decision in **Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation** (supra), the correct multiplier applicable to a 22 year old person is 18. If calculated thus, the appellant would be entitled to Rs.5,40,000/- (2500 x 12 x 18) as compensation for loss of _earning capacity_ , instead of Rs.5,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the appellant, for the rest of his life, the appellant will have to take the assistance of an Attendant, even to perform his bodily needs. That being so, the amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards attendant's charges, appears to be on the lower side. We enhance it to Rs.50,000/-. 6. We are not inclined to enhance the compensation MACA No.143/09 4 for _pain and sufferings_ and _loss of amenities._ The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards _loss of earning capacity_ . After granting 100% compensation for _loss of earning capacity_ , the Tribunal could not have awarded separately for _loss of earnings_ as well. That is why, we are not enhancing the compensation for _pain and sufferings_ and _loss of amenities_ . 7. Thus, the appellant would be entitled to Rs.55,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand only) more, over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal. This amount would carry interest @ 9% from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit that amount also within two months. With the above modification of the impugned award, the appeal is disposed of. **S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE** ## **K.RAMAKRISHNAN,JUDGE** MACA No.143/09 5 sta MACA No.143/09 6 Even assuming that the property in dispute is the subject matter of ceiling case, unless the property is taken over by the Government in accordance with law as provided under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, the person claiming possessory title over the property is entitled to keep the property and enjoy the same. Further, the persons, who are claiming landless are not entitled to claim any right over the property till it is allotted to them by the Government as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and they cannot take the law into their hands and trespass into the property and claim any right to occupy the property. Such an attitude of persons intruding into the possessory right of a person in lawful possession, cannot be MACA No.143/09 7 encouraged as well. So, if any threat has been caused to the lawful possession and enjoyment of the property by a person, who is entitled to possess the same in law, from a group of persons who have no right over the same, then, he is entitled to get protection from the police, for this purpose.