High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2011-09-29Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation b...

Beethu v. General Secretary, Santhigiri Ashram, Suran C., The New India Assurance Co Ltd, P. Viswanathan, The Manager, National Insurance Co Ltd

Case / Petition Number:MACA 1415 of 2011

Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: R. Basant
M. C. Hari Rani
Judgment Date: 2011-09-29
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs. 1,15,400/- as compensation in addition to the Tribunal’s award. The final award shall carry interest as per the Tribunal’s order, and proportionate costs before the Tribunal, as indicated in Jeena (supra), shall also be payable. All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation by Rs. 1,15,400; interest and proportionate costs as per Jeena (supra); all other Tribunal directions upheld.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Beethu, d/o Nirmaldas, Valsalam, Near Poor Home Society, West Hill, Kozhikode

Respondents

General Secretary, Santhigiri Ashram, Santhigiri P.O., Thiruvananthapuram, 695010
Suran C., S/o Chandran, Purakkattin, Chbiravakkattu House, Thalakkolathur P.O., Atholi (Via), Kozhikode
The Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd, Thiruvananthapuram, 695010
P. Viswanathan, S/o Kandaswamy Gounder, 6/1996, Thundhureddiyur, Pottaneri P.O., Metur T.K., Salem, Tamil Nadu
The Manager, National Insurance Co Ltd, 37/2E, Salem Main Road, Mettur Dam, Tamil Nadu

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Latheesh Sebastian

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Raji T. Bhaskar (for Respondent 5)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA) decided by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court (R. Basant, J. and M. C. Hari Rani, J.) on 29 September 2011. The appellant, Beethu, a 17-year-old student who had pursued BAMS, suffered severe injuries in a motor accident on 23 February 2003, including fractures and dental loss, while her medical board assessed 10% permanent disability. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal initially granted Rs. 2,20,292 in compensation. On appeal, the High Court found the quantum inadequate and revisited several heads of compensation. The court increased damages for pain and suffering to Rs. 25,000, and, considering the claimant’s youth, education and possible earning capacity, recalculated the earning loss with an assumed monthly income of Rs. 4,000 for computing future loss. The court also recognized loss of amenities (Rs. 40,000) and the probable interruption of education (Rs. 6,000) and added Rs. 59,400 for reduced earning capacity. Overall, the court determined an additional Rs. 1,15,400 in favour of the appellant, in addition to the Tribunal award, while directing interest and proportionate costs as per the Jeena decision. The verdict confirms the Tribunal’s other directions and holds that the final award shall reflect these enhancements.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles ActSection 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act2nd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the compensation for pain and suffering (Rs. 15,000) was grossly inadequate in light of the injuries and treatment duration; the Tribunal had earlier awarded Rs. 30,000 for pain and suffering, warranting enhancement. The claimant asserts that the monthly income used for calculating loss of earning capacity is unreal; being a student in 2003 and later a doctor, Rs. 4,000 per month should be considered as the probable income for calculating earning capacity under Section 166, with 18 years age affecting the multiplicand calculation. The appellant also seeks compensation under heads such as loss of amenities, shortened life expectancy, and depletion in marriage prospects, arguing 10% disability justifies non-pecuniary damages. The petitioner emphasizes educational retardation due to injuries and seeks compensation for that loss (estimated two months). Finally, she urges costs on proportionate basis, relying on Jeena v. Satheesh Babu to justify cost entitlement.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents challenge the inadequacy of the Tribunal’s quantum and oppose the proposed enhancements. Their counsel contends the original award reflects the appropriate compensation under the evidence, and they oppose increasing sums for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and educational interruption, while maintaining existing heads and rates. They also resist higher earnings considerations and broader non-pecuniary damages, arguing the evidence does not support substantial increases; the respondents rely on the Tribunal’s findings and the statutory framework to resist further enhancement.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Jeena v. Satheesh Babu	2011(3)KLT.943	Positive	Court relies on Jeena to grant proportionate costs, validating the general principle of awarding costs where justified; the decision is cited as supportive precedent for cost entitlement in enhanced compensation cases.

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 Beethu v. General Secretary, Santhigiri Ashram, Suran C., The New India Assurance Co Ltd, P. Viswanathan, The Manager, National 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 R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 7TH ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 1415 of 2011 ----------------------OPMV.155/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT: CLAIMANT ---------------------- BEETHU, D/O.NIRMALDAS, VALSALAM, NEAR POOR HOME SOCIETY, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN ## RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. GENERAL SECRETARY, SANTHIGIRI ASHRAM, SANTHIGIRI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 010. 2. SURAN.C., S/O.CHANDRAN, PURAKATTIN, CHBIRAVAKKATTU HOUSE, THALAKKOLATHUR P.O., ATHOLI (VIA), KOZHIKODE. 3. MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695010 4. P.K.VISWANATHAN, S/O.KANDASWAMY GOUNDER, 6/1996, THUNDHUREDDIYYUR, POTTANERI P.O., METTUR T.K., SALEM, TAMIL NADU. 5. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD, - 37/2E, SALEM MAIN ROAD, METTUR DAM, TAMIL NADU. ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR FOR R5 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ==============================** ## **M.A.C.A. NO. 1415 OF 2011 ============================** ## **Dated this the 29[th] day of September 2011** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **R.Basant, J.** The claimant is the appellant. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier, the appellant's claim for compensation was allowed and an amount of Rs.1,81,960/- was awarded as compensation. Earlier a Bench of this court set aside the said award and directed the Tribunal to dispose of the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the appellant to adduce further evidence. It is thereafter that the Tribunal has proceeded to pass the impugned award. 2. Claimant staked the claim for compensation for personal injuries suffered by her in a motor accident which took place on 23/2/2003. She was a student aged 17 years, a student of BAMS course on the relevant date. She had suffered multiple injuries including fractures. There was fracture of the femur, shaft of tibia, pelvis and mandible. There was loss of tooth. She was an inpatient for a period of 12 days. A Medical Board assessed her MACA 1415/2011 2 disability to be 10%. Against a total claim of Rs.20 lakhs, the Tribunal proceeded to award an amount of Rs.2,20,292/- as compensation as per the details given in paragraph 12 of the impugned award which we extract below: |**_Sl.NO._**|**_Head_**|**_Amount_** **_awarded_**|**_Details_**| |---|---|---|---| |1|Transport to Hospital|Rs.3,000/-|| |2|Extra nourishment|Rs..3,000/-|| |3|Damage to clothing and other articles|Rs. 750/-|| |4|Treatment expenses|Rs.1,70,442/-|(As per Ext.A6 series)| |5|Bystander's expenses|Rs. 1,100/-|(100 x 11 days)| |6|Pain and sufferings|Rs. 15,000/-|| |7|Permanent disability|Rs. 27,000/-|(15000x18x10/100)| ||Total|Rs.2,20,292/-|| 3. The challenge is raised against the impugned award on the ground of inadequacy of the quantum of compensation. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant advances various contentions. 4. First of all it is contended that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering (Rs.15,000/-) is too inadequate. The Tribunal on the earlier occasion had awarded Rs.30,000/- as compensation for pain and MACA 1415/2011 3 suffering, submits the learned counsel. We take note of the nature of injuries suffered and the period of treatment and the nature of treatment. We are in agreement that the quantum of compensation deserves to be enhanced. We hold that the appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering. 4. It is next contended that the Tribunal had unrealistically assumed the probable monthly income to be Rs.1250/-. The claimant was a student of the BAMS course then and she has completed her BAMS course and is a Doctor now, submits the learned counsel for the appellant. She had not started earning at the relevant time. In a claim under Section 163 A, the 2[nd] Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act stipulates that 15,000/- can be assumed to be the annual earnings. But in a claim under Section 166, the Tribunal is bound to make reasonable assumptions. We take note of the fact that the claimant was a BAMS student and is now a Doctor. She was aged 17 years at the relevant time. We are satisfied, taking all the relevant circumstances into account, that Rs.4,000/- can safely be assumed to be her probable monthly income which is to be reckoned as multiplicand for ascertaining the quantum of MACA 1415/2011 4 compensation for reduction in earning capacity. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no amount has been awarded under the head of loss of amenities, shortened expectation of life and for the depletion in marriage prospects. 10% physical disability is proved satisfactorily by Ext.C1 report of the Medical Board. Physical disability suffered leaves behind not only reduction in earning capacity, but it results in impairment and reduction in the quality of enjoyment of life. For all dimensions of such reflection, we are satisfied that compensation is liable to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities. Taking all circumstances into account including the extent of physical disability and the fact that the appellant is an unmarried woman, we are satisfied that an appropriate amount of compensation deserves to be awarded under that head. We are satisfied, taking all the relevant circumstances into account, that Rs.40,000/- can be fixed as the quantum of compensation under that head . The appellant was an inpatient for a period of 11 days. She had suffered serious injuries. The injury suffered must certainly retarded her educational progress. We are satisfied that it can safely be assumed that there must have been MACA 1415/2011 5 interruption in her educational career for a period of 2 months. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.6,000/- (3000x2)can be awarded as compensation under that head. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for further amount of Rs.1,15,400/- as compensation as shown below in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. |**_Sl.No_**|**_Head_**|**_Amount_** **_awarded_**|**_Details_**| |---|---|---|---| |1|Compensation for retardation in educational progress|Rs. 6,000/-|(3000x2_ no amount awarded by the Tribunal| |2|Pain and suffering|Rs.10,000/-|Rs.25000 minus Rs.15000| |3|Reduction in earning capacity|Rs.59,400/-|4000x12x18x10/100=86,400 minus 27000| |4|Loss of amenities – all dimensions|Rs.40,000/-|No amount awarded by the Tribunal| ||Total|Rs1,15,400/ -|| The learned counsel for the appellant submits that cost has not been awarded as held by this Court in **Jeena v. Satheesh Babu[2011(3)KLT. 943].** We are satisfied that proportionate cost as indicated in the said decision also deserves to be granted. In the result, a)this appeal is allowed in part. MACA 1415/2011 6 b)The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.1,15,400/- as compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. c)We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period specified by the Tribunal in the impugned award. d)We further direct that proportionate cost before the Tribunal as indicated in **Jeena (supra)** shall also be payable. d)All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. ## **R.BASANT, JUDGE** ## **M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE** ks. MACA 1415/2011 7