High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2015-05-21Appeal Allowed; enhanced compensation with inte...

Anto. A.M. v Auto Body (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. & Others

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.996 of 2005

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: T. R. Ramachandran Nair
K. P. Jyothindr Anath
Judgment Date: 2015-05-21
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The Tribunal’s quantum enhanced to ₹3,74,550 (₹4,000 monthly income, 18 multiplier, 25% disability). 9% interest from the date of petition; deposit to be made within three months, with the claimant permitted to withdraw the enhanced amount; costs to the parties assessed in the appeal.
Final Disposition: Appeal Allowed; enhanced compensation with interest; deposit ordered within three months; costs

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Anto. A.M., s/o Mathunni, Angamal y House, Perambra P.O., Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur District

Respondents

Auto Body (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd.
Nadiwadi, Tal Nilanga, Dist. Latur (deleted from party array)
Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 40/25, Bhonde Colony, OPP Algur Music House, Karve Road, Pune-411 004
Karegaon, Tal Shirur (deleted from party array)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri P. V. Baby
• Sri A. N. Santhosh

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Mathews Jacob (Sr.)
• Sri P. Jacob Mathew
• Smt. Preethi R. Nair

Case Synopsis & Summary

On 15 July 1997, an accident occurred on the Nagar-Pune road in Pune, injuring the appellant, Anto. A.M., a 25-year-old engineer and electrical contractor. He filed a MACT petition seeking ₹5,00,000 as compensation. The Tribunal awarded ₹2,82,148 with interest at 6% from the date of filing. The appellant challenged the quantum, contending that his income, drawn from qualifications and work with Apollo Tyres and related entities, justified a higher monthly income than the Tribunal fixed (₹3,000). The disability certificates (orthopaedic 21% and ophthalmic 10%) suggested a total disability of 31%, whereas the Tribunal assessed 25%. The insurer argued there was no documentary evidence of personal income and that income tax returns pertained to the firm, not the individual. The High Court, noting liability was not disputed, proceeded to reassess compensation. Relying on the appellant’s qualifications (National Trade Certificate, Luna Institute certification, Apollo Tyres endorsement), the court fixed monthly income at ₹4,000 and computed permanent disability at ₹2,16,000 (₹4,000 × 12 × 18 × 25%). It enhanced bystander, attendant, transport, and medical expenses; increased loss of earnings for the six-month partial loss period; raised pain and suffering to ₹30,000 and loss of amenities to ₹20,000. The total was ₹3,74,550, with 9% interest from filing. The appeal was allowed; the insurer was ordered to deposit within three months, with costs.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant submits that the Tribunal’s quantum of compensation is inadequate in several heads. Despite the admitted negligence and liability, the income was understated, the multiplier used (17) is inconsistent with the principle in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, and the total disability should reflect 31% per disability certificates (23% orthopaedic and 10% ophthalmic). Additional heads—bystander expenses, loss of amenities, and permanent disability—require proper adjudication with documentary evidence of the appellant’s earnings potential and professional qualifications.

Contentions of Respondents

The Insurance Company contends there is no documentary evidence of the appellant’s personal income; the income tax returns relate to the firm in which the appellant was a partner, not to him personally; thus, reliance on personal income figures is unwarranted. It argues the Tribunal’s disability assessment is not erroneous, and that the bystander, attendant, and other heads require corroboration with proper receipts and documentation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)	Positive	Used to justify applying the multiplier rule; court adopts multiplier 18 for a 25-year-old, aligning with Sarla Varma standards rather than Tribunal’s 17.

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 Anto. A.M. v Auto Body (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. & 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 T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR** **& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH** **THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2015/31ST VAISAKHA, 1937** **MACA.No. 996 of 2005 ( ) -------------------------** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1221/1998 of MACT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 07-01-2005** **APPELLANT/PETITIONER::** **----------------------------** **ANTO. A.M., S/O. MATHUNNI, ANGAMALY HOUSE, PERAMBRA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH** **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **----------------------------** ## **1. AUTO BODY (BOMBAY) PVT.LTD.,** **T-168 M.I.D.C., BHOSARI, PUNE-411 026.** ## **NADIWADI, TAL NILANGA DISTRICT** **LATUR. (R2 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 16/06/2014 IN IA 1566/2014)** **3. MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., 40/25, BHONDE COLONY, OPPOALURKAR MUSIC HOUSE, KARVE ROAD, PUNE-411 004.** **KAREGAON** **TAL SHIRUR. (R4 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 16/06/2014 IN IA 1566/2014)** **R3 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW R3 BY ADV. SMT.PREETHY R. NAIR** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-05-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **M.A.C.A.No.996 OF 2005** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21[st] day of May, 2015 ## **JUDGMENT** ## Ramachandran Nair, J. In an accident which occurred on 15.7.1997 at Pune, serious injuries were caused to the appellant and he filed an application seeking payment of compensation to the tune of ` 5 lakhs. The Tribunal below has allowed the appellant to realise a sum of ` 2,82,148/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition. The appellant is mainly aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. 2. The accident occurred on Nagar-Pune road while he was travelling in the vehicle bearing Reg.No.MH 26/C 1083. The offending vehicle is a Stage carriage bus bearing Reg.No.MH 12/Q 822, which was driven by the second respondent herein. It dashed against the vehicle in which the appellant was travelling. He was immediately taken to the hospital at Pune itself and was treated as MACA No.996/2005 2 inpatient for a period of 31 days. 3. It was claimed that the appellant was a qualified Engineer holding a Diploma in Electrical Engineering. He was an Electrical Contractor with Appolo Tyres and the monthly income claimed is `6,000/- and the Tribunal below fixed it at `3,000/- and the multiplier adopted is 17, whereas going by the age of the appellant, namely 25, and as per the decision in **Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation ( 2010 (2 ) KLT 802 (SC)** , it will be 18. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the amount awarded towards permanent disability do not reflect the correct picture. According to the learned counsel, the disability certificates issued together will show that the disability is 31% which include orthopaedic disability as well as the disability caused to the vision to the left eye. But the Tribunal has fixed it only at 25%. Further, amounts have been claimed towards expenses for bystander, permanent disability and loss of amenities in life. 4. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company while opposing the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant MACA No.996/2005 3 submits that actually there is no documentary evidence to show the personal income of the appellant. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the income tax return, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that it was only in respect of the firm of which the appellant was a partner. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. In the light of the finding with regard to the negligence and the liability of the driver which is not under challenge by any of the respondents, we are only adjudicating the claim for enhancement of compensation. 6. First we will refer to the disability certificates produced. Those have been proved through PW1, the doctor and in Ext.A1 the orthopaedic disability is shown as 21%. Ext.A22 is the certificate showing the disability to the left eye which is 10%. After considering both orthopaedic and ophthalmic disability, the learned Tribunal assessed the total disability as 25%. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant tried to persuade us to accept the total percentage by reckoning both certificates at 31%, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the assessment made by the MACA No.996/2005 4 Tribunal cannot be said to be faulty. 7. We have gone through the certificates also. Orthopaedic disability is mainly to the shoulder right 15% and shoulder left 6%. He had sustained head injury namely to the skull and there was nasal bleeding when he was admitted in the hospital. Going by the said certificate, fractures noted are fracture ( Rt.) scapula, fracture mandible bilateral, fracture ( u) scapula, fracture of frontal bones, fracture ( u) orbit. Various details have been shown in the certificate with respect to the treatment procedures undertaken by him. 8. As regards the period of treatment and expenses, there is no dispute. He was treated as an inpatient for a period of 31 days. We find from the award that the Tribunal has granted an amount of ` 3,100/- towards extra nourishment and attendant's charges. He would have been entitled to attendant's charges separately by reckoning a reasonable amount. We fix the amount towards attendant's charges at `3,500/- and extra nourishment at `3,000/-. As far as the expenses for transportation to hospital, `2,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal, which is adequate. MACA No.996/2005 5 9. The appellant being of the age group 25, the multiplier as we have already noted is 18. In the light of the fact that he was having qualification both in mechanical and electrical disciplines which is proved by Ext.A18 National Trade Certificate issued by the Government of India, Ext.A19 certificate issued from the Luna Institute of Engineering Technology, Irinjalakkuda coupled with Ext.A20 certificate issued from the Apollo Tyres Ltd., it will be proper to fix the monthly income at `4,000/-. The compensation towards permanent disability will be ` 2,16,000/- ( 4000 x 12 x 18 x 25%). 10. The Tribunal has granted partial loss of earnings for a period of six months. At the rate of `4,000/-, it will be `24,000/-, instead of `18,000/- already granted by the Tribunal. We also enhance the compensation towards pain and suffering from `20,000/- to `30,000/- considering the seriousness of the injuries and the period of treatment. Lastly, it was contended that the amount awarded towards loss of amenities and happiness in life is also totally inadequate. The permanent disability suffered by him will result in denying to an extent the amenities and enjoyment in life and we fix the the compensation MACA No.996/2005 6 ## under this head at `20,000/-. 11. Accordingly, we refix the compensation as shown below : |**_Head of claim_**|**_Amount Awarded in_** **_rupees_**| |---|---| |Loss of earnings|24000| |Extra nourishment|3000| |Attendant's expenses|3500| |Transport to hospital|2000| |Medical expenses|76048| |Pain and suffering|30000| |Loss of amenities|20000| |Permanent disability|216000| |Total|374548 Rounded off to `3,74,550/- ( Rupees three lakhs seventy four thousand five hundred fiftyonly)| 12. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition. The Insurance Company will deposit the amount within a period of three months, less the amount already deposited, before the Tribunal and we permit the claimant to withdraw MACA No.996/2005 7 the amount. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The parties will suffer their costs in the appeal. **T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE** **K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH,JUDGE** sv.