High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-07-06The appeal is disposed of.

Ashly Babu v ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA No.2391 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Murali Purushothaman
Judgment Date: 2022-07-06
Court Decision / Holding: Enhanced compensation of Rs 9,10,000 awarded in addition to the Tribunal’s original award. The 3rd respondent insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount before the Tribunal with 8% interest per annum from the petition date till realisation and proportionate costs within two months from today. The appeal is disposed of.
Final Disposition: The appeal is disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ashly Babu

Respondents

The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Anil S. Raj
• Smt. Anila Peter
• Smt. K.N. Rajani
• Sri. Radhika Rajasekharan P.

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. R. Ajith Kumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal, MACA No.2391 of 2016, arises from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in O.P. (M.V.) No.127 of 2012, Irinjalakuda, challenging the quantum of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision on NH 47 near Thrissur–Chalakudy. The petitioner, Ashly Babu, then 23, was employed as a marketing manager earning Rs 12,500 per month. The Tribunal held the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving by the 2nd respondent and awarded a total compensation of Rs 38,25,170 with 8% interest from 23.02.2012 and costs, spanning heads such as loss of earnings, medical expenses, pain and suffering, permanent disability, bystander expenses, loss of amenities, future medical expenses, loss of marriage prospects, and others. The petitioner sought a higher sum, citing severe injuries including brain injury, repeated hospitalizations, rehabilitative surgeries, and long-term disability. The 3rd respondent insurer admitted policy validity but claimed the amount was excessive. The High Court, while noting the 2nd respondent’s rash driving and the extensive nature of injuries, re-evaluated compensation by considering disability at 50%, and re-fixated monthly income at Rs 17,500 to account for future prospects. Relying on Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar, the court directed enhanced compensation, re-calculated several heads (including bystander's expenses, pain and suffering, permanent disability, and future medical expenses) and ultimately held the appellant entitled to an enhanced amount of Rs 9,10,000. The appeal was disposed of with directions for the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount with interest and costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

M.V. Act does not provide for passing of further award after final award; future medical expenses can be determined and included
Future prospects for permanent disability in motor vehicle accident cases (Pappu Deo Yadav v Naresh Kumar and others, AIR 2020 SC 4424)
Genuine and reasonable future medical expenses can be included in the final award, subject to fair estimation (Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that the Tribunal’s compensation award of Rs 38,25,170 was inordinately low in view of severe, long-term injuries and protracted rehabilitation. They pressed for inclusion of future medical expenses and future prospects in light of the claimant’s young age and substantial disability, citing the need to account for ongoing care and treatment. Relying on Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, they urged that the final award should anticipate and reasonably cover possible future medical costs, while also applying the principle of future prospects for permanent disability in accordance with Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar (AIR 2020 SC 4424). They argued for re-assessment of heads such as loss of earnings, bystander expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, ultimately seeking a substantially higher total compensation that reflects the gravity of injuries and long-term impact on the claimant’s life.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the Tribunal’s award was just and modest, and that the appeal should be dismissed or reduced. They argued that the medical expenses, loss of earnings, and other heads were evidence-based and proportionate to the injury profile. The insurer emphasized that the claim was inflated and not supported by the extent of disability and the duration of hospitalisation, and cautioned against overestimating future costs without precise medical projections.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar and others	[AIR 2020 SC 4424]	Positive	Court relied on the principle of including future prospects for permanent disability and future income considerations as per the cited SC decision.
Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh	(2003) 2 SCC 274	Positive	Court cited the rule that MV Act does not permit a post-final award, but future medical expenses may be anticipated and included; used to justify additional future medical expense considerations and adjustments at final 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 Ashly Babu v ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. 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 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944** **MACA NO. 2391 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 21.04.2016 IN OP(M.V) NO.127/2012 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **ASHLY BABU AGED 27 YEARS S/O. SRI. BABU, ARAKKAL MALAKKARAN HOUSE, KIZHAKKE CHALAKUDY VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY P. O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI. ANIL S.RAJ SMT. ANILA PETER SMT. K.N. RAJANI SRI. RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.** ## **RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:** **THE ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MAHALAXMI, MUMBAI – 400 034.** **SRI. R.AJITH KUMAR** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA No.2391 OF 2016** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner in O.P (M.V) No.127 of 2012 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda has filed this appeal challenging the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The parties in this appeal are referred to as per their status in the claim petition. 2. According to the petitioner, while he was riding a motor cycle through Thrissur – Chalakkudy Sector of NH 47, a car bearing Registration No.KL-45/B 2221 driven by the 2[nd] respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit down the motor cycle and the petitioner sustained serious injuries. The petitioner was aged 23 years at the time of the accident and was working as Marketing Manager of a private firm, drawing an amount of Rs.12,500/- as salary. He claimed a total compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- for the injuries **MACA No.2391 OF 2016** **3** sustained in the accident. 3. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1, 2 and 4 remained ex-parte. On the side of the petitioner, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A24 documents were marked. The 3[rd] respondent Insurance Company filed a written statement admitting that the car was having a valid insurance policy at the time of the accident. However, they contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant. 4. The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the 2[nd] respondent and awarded an amount of Rs.38,25,170/- as total compensation with 8% interest per annum from 23.02.2012 till realisation and proportionate costs. 5. The Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads as follows:- **==> picture [428 x 55] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Basis vital No Claimed Awarded details in a (Rs.) (Rs.) nut shell **----- End of picture text -----** **MACA No.2391 OF 2016** **4** **==> picture [431 x 620] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** 1 Loss of earnings 7,50,000 62,500 (Rs.12500x5 months) 2 Transportation 3,00,000 10,000 expenses 3 Extra 3,00,000 10,000 nourishment 4 Damage to 5,000 500 clothings 5 Bystander's 5,00,000 10,000 Expenses 6 Medical Expenses 25,00,000 21,32,170 7 Pain and suffering 10,00,000 50,000 8 Permanent 15,00,000 13,50,000 (1,50,000x18 disability x50%) 9 Loss of amenities 10,00,000 50,000 -- 10 Loss of earning 40,00,000 power 11 Disfiguration 2,00,000 50,000 12 Anticipated 10,00,000 50,000 medical expenses -- 13 Loss of 10,00,000 employment -- 14 Future bystander 5,00,000 expenses 15 Loss of marriage 10,00,000 50,000 prospects -- 16 Mental dejection 5,00,000 Total 1,60,55,000 38,25,170 Rs.38,25,170 (limited to along with Rs.1,00,00,000 interest 8% p.a from 23.02.2012 till realisation **----- End of picture text -----** **MACA No.2391 OF 2016** **5** 6. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred this appeal. 7. Exts.A3 and A21 wound certificates produced by the petitioner would show that he sustained the following injuries:- “1. Large laceration involving eye brows and eyes. 2. Large scalp laceration 3. Swelling (L) wrist joint 4. Diffuse sub arachanoid heamorrhage 5. Diffuse brain oedema. 6. Left side periorbital oedema 7.Multiple abrasion on the face, back and exrteometus 8. Fracture of (L) zygoma 9. Fracture of (L) clavicle.” 8. Ext.A4 is the discharge summary issued from the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam during the period 2011 – 2015. As per the same, the petitioner underwent (R) FTP decompressive craniectomy and evacuation of hygroma with placement of bone flap in **MACA No.2391 OF 2016** **6** abdominal layers on 08.10.2011. Wound debridement and suturing was done by plastic surgery. He was treated with antiodema measures, AED's, neuroprotective measures, analgescis, antacids and other supportive measures. Tracheostomy was also done. He has undergone Excision of heterotropic ossification + THR (R) hip on 11.09.2013, Exploration + reconstruction of femoral artery using great saphenous venous graft (R), Implant removal and excision arthoplasty on 30.01.2014 and incision and drainage (R) hip performed with antibiotic cement spacer exchange on 25-07-2015. 9. Ext.A5 is the CT scan report. As per Ext.A8 discharge summary, the petitioner was admitted in Life Care Clinic from 10-04-2012 to 18-04-2012, 20-082012 to 19-10-2012 and from 02-08-2013 to 28-082013 for rehabilitation of traumatic brain injury and myosistis osificans of hip joint. He was treated with rehabilitative measures including physiotherapy and **MACA No.2391 OF 2016** **7** occupational therapy. As per Ext.A9 discharge summary, he was admitted in Kumar Centre for Stroke & Rehabilitation, Vaduthala from 03-01-2012 and discharged on 11-01-2012 for rehabilitation with complaints of quadriparesis, inability to walk and fixed deformity of both Lower limbs. Ext.A10 discharge summary would show that he was admitted in Brain & Spine Centre, Chemmanakary on 01-04-2012 and discharged on 06-04-2012. He was treated with rehabilitative measures including physiotherapy. Ext.A11 discharge summary is to the effect that he was admitted in Christian Medical College, Vellore from 1507-2015 and discharged on 17-07-2015 to rule out septic arthritis of right hip joint. 10. In Ext.A19 disability certificate issued by PW1 Doctor, the percentage of disability of the petitioner is noted as 42.66%. Ext.A20 is the disability certificate issued by PW2, Eye Micro Surgeon, wherein, the disability has been noted as 15%. Taking note of **MACA No.2391 OF 2016** **8** Exts.A19 and A20 certificates, the Tribunal took the disability of the petitioner as 50% for the purpose of assessment of compensation. 11. The Tribunal has taken the income of the petitioner as Rs.12,500/- taking into account Ext.A18 salary certificate. Towards loss of earnings, an amount of Rs.62,500/- has been awarded stating that he had loss of earnings for five months. Taking note of the period of hospitalisation of 335 days during 14 different spells, I re-fix the compensation for loss of earnings as Rs.1,25,000/- (12,500x10 months). Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for an additional amount of **Rs.62,500/-** (1,25,000-62,500) under the said head. 12. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.13,50,000/- towards permanent disability. In **Pappu Deo Yadav** _**v**_ **. Naresh Kumar and others [AIR 2020 SC 4424],** the Apex Court has held that, in cases of serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident, the claimant **MACA No.2391 OF 2016** **9** can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects too; and to the extent of disability. Since the percentage of disability found by the Tribunal is 50%, the Tribunal ought to have added 40% of the income towards future prospects. Accordingly, the monthly income of the petitioner is refixed as Rs.17,500/- (12500+5000) for assessment of disability compensation. Therefore, the compensation for permanent disability is re-assessed as Rs.18,90,000/- (17,500 x 12 x 18 x 50%). After deducting the amount of Rs.13,50,000/- already awarded, the petitioner is entitled for an enhanced compensation of **Rs.5,40,000/-** (18,90,000-13,50,000) under the said head. 13. Towards bystander's expenses, the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. However, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000/-. Taking note of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the period of hospitalisation, I find that the amount awarded under **MACA No.2391 OF 2016** **10** the head bystander's expenses is on the lower side. Since the petitioner was in the hospital for 335 days, I re-fix the compensation for bystander's expenses as **Rs.1,67,500/-** (335 days x 500) and he will be entitled for an amount of **Rs.1,57,500/-** (1,67,500-10,000) as additional compensation under the said head. 14. Towards pain and suffering, the petitioner was awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Taking note of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, I re-fix the compensation for the same as Rs.75,000/-. Therefore, an amount of **Rs.25,000/-** (75,000-50,000) is awarded additionally under the head pain and suffering. 15. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- each towards loss of amenities, marriage prospects and disfiguration. Since the petitioner was a bachelor aged only 23 years at the time of the accident and taking note of the disability sustained by him, I find that an additional amount of **Rs.1,00,000/-** can be awarded under the head compensation for loss of amenities. **MACA No.2391 OF 2016** **11** 16. The petitioner has been awarded Rs.50,000/under the head anticipated medical expenses. The Tribunal found that the petitioner would require prolonged physiotherapy for his weakness and hip following excision arthroplasty. In **Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh [(2003) 2 SCC 274],** the Apex Court observed as follows: “23. However, it is to be clearly understood that M.V. Act does not provide for passing of further award after final award is passed. Therefore, in a case where injury to a victim requires periodical medical expenses, fresh award cannot be passed or previous award cannot be reviewed when the medical expenses are incurred after finalization of the compensation proceedings. Hence, only alternative is that at the time of passing of final award, tribunal/court should consider such eventuality and fix compensation accordingly. No one can suggest that it is improper to take into account expenditure genuinely and reasonably **MACA No.2391 OF 2016** **12** required to be incurred for future medical expenses. Future medical expenses required to be incurred can be determined only on the basis of fair guesswork after taking into account increase in the cost of medical treatment.” Taking note of the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, an additional amount of **Rs.25,000/-** is awarded under the said head. 17. Accordingly, the compensation is re-worked as follows, for easy reference:- **==> picture [431 x 311] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Enhanced No Claimed Awarded amount (Rs.) (Rs.) 1 Loss of earnings 7,50,000 62,500 62,500 - 2 Transportation 3,00,000 10,000 expenses - 3 Extra 3,00,000 10,000 nourishment - 4 Damages to 5,000 500 clothings 5 Bystander's 5,00,000 10,000 1,57,500 Expenses -- 6 Medical 25,00,000 21,32,170 Expenses 7 Pain and 10,00,000 50,000 25,000 suffering **----- End of picture text -----** **MACA No.2391 OF 2016** **13** **==> picture [431 x 370] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** 8 Permanent 15,00,000 13,50,000 5,40,000 disability 9 Loss of amenities 10,00,000 50,000 1,00,000 -- - 10 Loss of earning 40,00,000 power - 11 Disfiguration 2,00,000 50,000 12 Anticipated 10,00,000 50,000 25,000 medical expenses -- - 13 Loss of 10,00,000 employment -- - 14 Future bystander 5,00,000 expenses - 15 Loss of marriage 10,00,000 50,000 prospects -- - 16 Mental dejection 5,00,000 Total 1,60,55,000 38,25,170 9,10,000 (limited to Rs.1,00,00,000 **----- End of picture text -----** ## 18. The Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation under other heads. In the result, the petitioner will be entitled for an enhanced amount of **Rs.9,10,000/-** in this appeal. The 3[rd] respondent Insurance Company shall deposit the said amount before the Tribunal with 8% interest per annum from the date of the petition till realisation and **MACA No.2391 OF 2016** **14** proportionate costs within a period of two months from today. It is made clear that the compensation awarded under the head anticipated medical expenses (future treatment) will carry interest only from the date of the award. The appeal is disposed of. **Sd/-** **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** SPR