Baby v. Rony and Joosy and The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Shoba Annamma Eapen
Judgment Date: 2024-05-24
Court Decision / Holding: Thus the impugned award is partly modified: the High Court applies Ramachandrappa to fix monthly income at ₹7,500 for loss of earnings, recalculates compensation on several heads, and increases future medical expenses and loss of amenities in life. The overall result is a total enhanced compensation of ₹10,68,886 with interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing till realization, with costs. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within 60 days, and the claimant must provide PAN/Aadhaar and bank details within one month to facilitate payment.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed; enhanced compensation with direction for deposit within 60 days and compliance requirements; final total ₹10,68,886.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Baby

Respondents

Rony
Joosy
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sheji P. Abraham

Counsels for Respondents

• Sebastian Varghese

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal under the Kerala High Court. Appellant Baby challenges a 2019 MACT award in O.P. (MV) No. 623/2011, which awarded ₹8,90,730 as compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident on 05-11-2010 involving his motorcycle KL-8/C-983 and a lorry KL-8/AP-2500. The Tribunal had fixed the claimant’s monthly income at ₹5,000, though the appellant is contending he is a businessman and relies on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd (2011) 13 SCC 236 to fix income at ₹7,500 per month for loss of earnings. The appellant seeks enhancement across several heads: loss of earnings, continuing or permanent disability, pain and suffering, future medical expenses, and loss of amenities in life. Ext. A9 shows disability with malunion of a radius fracture and 37.32% whole‑body disability, suggesting ongoing treatment needs. The insurer/respondents submit that the Tribunal’s award was reasonable and that there is no proof of future medical expenditure; however, the Court notes the disability certificate supports future treatment. The High Court partly allows the appeal: it increases several heads, recalculates amounts, and awards a total compensation of ₹10,68,886 with 8% interest, directing the insurer to deposit within 60 days along with PAN/Aadhaar and bank details for disbursement.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for the appellant contends that the MACT erred by not applying the Ramachandrappa principle to fix the claimant’s monthly income at ₹7,500, resulting in a lower loss of earnings. The salary-based approach should yield ₹90,000 for 12 months, cascading into higher awards for continuing disability, future medical expenses, and loss of amenities. Ext. A9 shows permanent disability and malunion, indicating ongoing treatment. The appellant seeks uplift of future medical expenses and additional compensation for pain and suffering, rehabilitation, and loss of amenities, to reflect the true extent of impairment and rehabilitation needs.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ counsel argues that there is no proven income and the Tribunal’s award is reasonable; no evidence of future medical expenditure was adduced. However, the insurer’s counsel concedes that Ext. A9 indicates malunion and disability, and that the claimant may require future treatment. The insurer maintains that any enhancement must be grounded in evidence and proportionate to the injuries and costs, and requests restraint from excessive modification of the award.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Court applied the Ramachandrappa principle to fix the claimant’s monthly income at ₹7,500 for calculating loss of earnings.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1946 MACA NO. 4668 OF 2019 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.06.2019 IN OPMV NO.623 OF 2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL & SPECIAL COURT FOR E.C. ACT ``` ## **`CASES, THRISSUR`** ## **`APPELLANT/PETITIONER:`** ``` BABY AGED 56 YEARS S/O.KOCHAPPU, PULIKKODAN HOUSE, KAMBANIPPADI PO OLLUR, THRISSUR-680306 ``` ``` BY ADV SHEJI P.ABRAHAM ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS:`** |**`1`**|**`RONY`**| |---|---| ||**`AGED 34 YEARS`**| ||**`S/O.THOMAS, THERMADATHIL HOUSE, PO CHEMMANTHITTA,`**| ||**`KECHERY (VIA)-680501`**| |**`2`**|**`JOOSY`**| ||**`S/O.MARTIN, VAZHAPPILLY HOUSE, KAIPARAMBU.P.O.,`**| ||**`THRISSUR-680546`**| |**`3`**|**`THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD`**| ||**`KUNNAMKULAM BRANCH, 2ND FLOOR, ORISON COMPLEX,`**| ||**`WADAKKANCHERRY ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM ALATHIYOOR-680503`**| ||**`REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER`**| ||**`BY ADV SEBASTIAN VARGHESE(K/141/2000)`**| ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 24.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 4668 OF 2019 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 24th day of May, 2024** The above appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the award dated 25.06.2019 in O.P.(MV) No.623/2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The said claim petition was filed by the appellant seeking compensation of ₹13,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant on 05.11.2010 due to an accident occurred at Thrissur-Ollur public road. The appellant was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-8/C-983 and a lorry bearing registration No.KL-8/AP2500 hit on the appellant’s motorcycle and he was injured. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of ₹8,90,730/-. Dissatisfied by the award of the Tribunal, the appellant has approached this Court with the above appeal for enhancement of compensation. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the 3[rd] respondent-insurance company. ``` MACA NO. 4668 OF 2019 ``` ``` 3 ``` 3. Exts.A1 to A17 were marked on the side of the appellant and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the 3[rd] respondent. No oral evidence was adduced in this case. The learned counsel for the appellant had claimed enhancement of compensation on the following heads. 4. **Loss of earnings** - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had claimed an amount of 9,000/- as₹ his monthly income claiming that he is a businessman. However, there was no proof of income. Hence, the counsel submits that the tribunal ought to have been fixed the income at the rate as held in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236,** in order to arrive at the loss of earnings as well. There is no dispute that the income arrived by the Tribunal is ₹5,000/- whereas as per the judgment in **Ramachandrappa** (supra), the Tribunal ought to have taken an amount of ₹7,500/-. Accordingly, the monthly income is enhanced and fixed at 7,500/-. A period of 12 months was₹ ``` MACA NO. 4668 OF 2019 ``` ``` 4 ``` taken by the Tribunal for awarding loss of earnings and awarded an amount of 60,000/- . On recalculation, there will be an₹ additional enhancement of 30,000/- (₹ ₹7,500 x 12 = 90,000/-)₹ towards the head ‘loss of earnings’. 5. **Compensation for continuing or permanent disability** - On the basis of the enhancement of the monthly income, the compensation for continuing or permanent disability also need to be reworked. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of 2,46,312/-₹ towards the said head. Since the monthly income has been enhanced to 7,500/-, the amount of compensation for continuing₹ or permanent disability is recalculated and enhanced to ₹3,69,468/- (₹7,500x37.32/100x12x11). Thus, there will be an additional amount of 1,23,156/- under the said head.₹ 6. **Pain and suffering** – The learned counsel for the appellant also claimed enhancement for pain and suffering. On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the appellant had claimed 50,000/- and₹ the Tribunal has awarded an amount of 50,000/-. The amount₹ ``` MACA NO. 4668 OF 2019 ``` ``` 5 ``` awarded by the Tribunal appears to be reasonable. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the same. 7. **Future medical expenses** – The learned counsel for the appellant also sought enhancement for future medical expenses awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant had claimed an amount of ₹50,000/- and the Tribunal had awarded an amount of 25,000/-.₹ The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in Ext.A9 disability certificate, the doctor has noted malunion of fracture radius and assessed the whole body permanent disability as 37.32%. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is undergoing treatment and also needs future treatment and prays for an enhancement. The learned standing counsel for the respondent-company submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and further submits that no evidence has been adduced by the claimant to future treatment. But, on a perusal of Ext.A9 disability certificate, it is seen that there is malunion of fracture noted by the doctor who examined the ``` MACA NO. 4668 OF 2019 ``` ``` 6 ``` claimant and issued the disability certificate and it shows that the appellant needs future medical treatment also. Hence, I am inclined to enhance the amount of 25,000/- awarded by the₹ Tribunal to 40,000/-. Thus, there is an additional amount of₹ ₹15,000/- on that head. 8. **Loss of amenities in life** – Finally, the learned counsel for the appellant has also claimed enhancement under the head ‘loss of amenities in life’. The learned counsel submits that the appellant could not do any work and could not enjoy his life for more than one year and thus the amount of 40,000/- awarded by₹ the tribunal may be enhanced to 50,000/-. On consideration of₹ the injuries sustained and finding that the appellant’s movement was restricted for more than one year, as well as the fact that there was malunion of fracture, I find that enhancement can be granted on that head as well. Accordingly, an amount of 10,000/- is₹ granted in addition to the amount of 40,000/- already granted by₹ the Tribunal. Thus, there will be an enhancement of 10,000/-₹ ``` MACA NO. 4668 OF 2019 ``` ``` 7 ``` under that head. The appellant is not entitled to get enhancement under any other heads. ## 9. Thus the impugned award is partly modified as follows: |**Sl.** **No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount** **claimed** **(in Rs.)**|**Amount** **awarded** **by the** **tribunal** **(in Rs.)**|**Amount** **modified** **in appeal** **(in Rs.)**|**Total** **compensation**| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |1.|Loss of earning|50,000|60,000|30,000|90,000| |2.|Partial loss of earnings|50,000|-|-|-| |3.|Transportation expenses|10,000|5,000|-|5,000| |4.|Extra nourishment|50,000|30,000|-|30,000| |5.|Damage to clothing etc.|10,000|1,000|-|1,000| |6.|Medical expenses|7,00,000|3,70,018|-|3,70,018| |7.|Personal Assistance|50,000|50,000|-|50,000| |8.|Bystander expenses|-|13,400|-|13,400| |9.|Pain and suffering|50,000|50,000|-|50,000| |10.|Loss of earning power|3,50,000|-|-|-| |11.|Future medical expense|50,000|25,000|15,000|40,000| ``` MACA NO. 4668 OF 2019 ``` ``` 8 ``` |12.|Compensation for continuing or permanent disability|3,50,000|2,46,312|1,23,156|3,69,468| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |13.|Loss of amenities in life|50,000|40,000|10,000|50,000| ||Total|17,70,000|8,90,730|**1,78,156**|10,68,886| ||Claim limits to|13,00,000|||| In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of ₹1,78,156/(total compensation 10,68,886/-, that is, 8,90,730/- granted by the₹ ₹ Tribunal + 1,78,156/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate₹ of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization and proportionate costs. The respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest and costs within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The appellant shall furnish his PAN card, Aadhar card and bank details to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above within a period of one month. Failing to furnish the said details, it will be open for the insurance company to deposit ``` MACA NO. 4668 OF 2019 ``` ``` 9 ``` the same amount before the Tribunal. ## **`Sd/-`** ## **`SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN`** ``` JUDGE ``` ``` NP ```