High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-11-18Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation a...

BiJoy Geevarghese v. Shabeer A. and United India Insurance Company Ltd

Case / Petition Number:MACA No.2942 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
Judgment Date: 2021-11-18
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed in part. The court enhanced overall compensation by Rs. 1,83,000, resulting in a total award of Rs. 5,52,500 with interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing until realization, plus proportionate costs of Rs. 3,000. The 2nd respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount plus accrued interest and costs within two months of receipt of a certified copy of judgment.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation awarded; insurer to deposit within two months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

BiJoy Geevarghese S/o. Geevarghese

Respondents

Shabeer A.
The United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri A.N. Santosh Lijin
• A. George
• Sri Manoj K. Jacob

Case Synopsis & Summary

This MACA (Motor Accident Claims Appeal) arises from a claim petition filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, by the appellant for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on the Irumpanam–Kalamassery road when his motorcycle KL-07/AE 3826 was struck by a car KL-50/8332 driven by the 1st respondent. The car was insured by the 2nd respondent. The Tribunal held the car driver negligent and awarded Rs. 3,69,500 as total compensation under various heads including loss of earnings, treatment, pain and suffering, disability, and future treatment, with a detailed head-wise breakdown. The petitioner contends the award is inadequate, especially for loss of earnings, arguing the notional income used by the Tribunal (Rs. 4,000 per month) is too low and urging adherence to the Supreme Court’s Ramachandrappa guidance, which fixes a higher notional income (Rs. 7,500 per month for an accident in 2010). The insurer conceded policy validity but attributed fault to the claimant and argued the claim amount was excessive. The High Court, while acknowledging negligence on the car driver, re-dresses several heads by applying the Ramachandrappa principle, increasing notional income, determining six months’ loss of earnings, enhancing pains, disability, and amenities allowances, and fixing future treatment amounts. The result is an allowed appeal in part, with enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,83,000, interest at 8% p.a. from filing, and costs of Rs. 3,000; insurer to deposit the enhanced amount within two months of the certified copy.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income principle for manual labourers (Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, 2011 (13) SCC 236) — used to fix monthly notional income as Rs. 7,500 for a 2010 accident; Multiplier approach for calculating disability (as per Ramachandrappa)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant argued that the Tribunal’s compensation was inadequate, especially for loss of earnings, citing the notional income used by the Tribunal (Rs. 4,000 per month) against the Supreme Court’s Ramachandrappa principle, which fixes notional income higher (Rs. 7,500 in 2010). They urged re-fixation of notional income, six months’ loss of earnings, increased allowance for extra nourishment, pain and suffering, and permanent/partial disability using the multiplier approach, and recognition of loss of amenities and future treatment costs. Respondents(The insured and the owner-driver) contended negligence by the claimant, disputed excessiveness of the claim, and upheld policy validity while arguing the award should be modest.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents supported the insurer’s position that the accident resulted from negligent driving by the claimant and that the claim amount was unreasonable. They contended that the Tribunal’s findings on negligence were sound, and that the compensation should not be inflated beyond the heads shown in the award; the insurer requested standard deductions as per policy terms.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	2011 (13) SCC 236	Positive	The High Court applied the notional income principle from Ramachandrappa to re-fix the claimant’s monthly income (Rs. 7,500) and recalibrate compensation heads accordingly.

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 BiJoy Geevarghese v. Shabeer A. and United India Insurance Company 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 THURSDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1943** **MACA NO. 2942 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 21.05.2014 IN OPMV NO.1807/2010 OF MOTOR** **ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **BIJOY GEEVARGHESE S/O. GEEVARGHESE, PAINUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, PUTHENCRUZ P. O., PUTHENCRUZ.** **BY ADVS. SRI. A.N. SANTHOSH LIJIN A. GEORGE SRI. MANOJ K. JACOB** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 SHABEER. A. S/O. KUNJHAMMED HOUSE, ACHIPRA HOUSE, BEEMANAD P. O., MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD – 678 582. 2 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.9, MUMBAI, PIN – 400 001. R2 - SRI. P. K. MANOJKUMAR** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **M.A.C.A No.2942 OF 2014** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.1807 of 2010 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam is the appellant herein. The parties in this appeal are referred to as per the status in the claim petition. The claim petition was filed claiming compensation for the personal injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident. According to the petitioner, while he was riding a motor cycle bearing Registration No.KL-07/AE 3826 along Irumpanam – Kalamassery Road and when he reached at Poojarivalavu, a car bearing Registration No.KL-50/8332 driven by the 1[st] respondent came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit on the petitioner's motor cycle and the petitioner sustained injuries. The 2[nd] respondent is the insurer of the said vehicle. The petitioner claimed an amount of **M.A.C.A No.2942 OF 2014** **3** Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation. The owner-cumdriver of the vehicle, the 1[st] respondent entered appearance before the Tribunal and contended that the accident happened due to the negligent riding of the motor cycle by the petitioner and that the car was covered by a valid insurance policy with the 2[nd] respondent. 2. The Insurance Company filed a written statement admitting that the car involved in the accident had a valid policy at the time of the accident, but contended that the accident happened due to the negligence of the petitioner. They also contended that the amounts claimed is excessive. Before the Tribunal the claimant produced Exts.A1 to A11 documents. No documents were produced on the side of the respondents. 3. The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the 1[st] respondent. The Tribunal awarded an amount of **M.A.C.A No.2942 OF 2014** **4** Rs.3,69,500/- as total compensation to the petitioner. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads is extracted below:- |Sl. No|Heads|Amount claimed|Amount awarded (in Rs.)|| |---|---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earnings|50,000|16,000|4000x4| |2|Partial loss of earnings|10,000|0|| |3|Transport to Hospital and back to home|5,000|2,000|| |4|Extra Nourishment|5,000|1,000|| |5|Damage to clothes and articles|1,000|500|| |6|Attendant Expenses|5,000|5,000|| |7|Treatment expenses|2,00,000|1,61,000|| |8|Compensation for pain and sufferings|30,000|20,000|| |9|Compensation for disfiguration|1,000|0|| |10|Compensation for continuing and permanent/partial disability|1,50,000|1,44,000|4000x12x 20/100x15| |11|Compensation for future treatments|25,000|20000|| |12|Compensation for loss of earning power|50,000|0|| |13|Compensation for loss of expectation of life/amenities and|50,000|0|| **M.A.C.A No.2942 OF 2014** **5** ||enjoyment in life|||| |---|---|---|---|---| |14|Compensation for loss of expectation|20,000|0|| |15|All discomforts due to the result of future operation|0|0|| ||Total|6,11,000|3,69,500|| ||Claimed Rs.5,00,000/-|||| 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. The counsel for the petitioner points out that the compensation awarded under the head loss of earnings is too inadequate and the Tribunal went wrong in taking the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.4,000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager,** **Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited** [ _2011 (13) SCC 236_ ], wherein the Apex Court has held that the notional income of a manual labourer has to be taken as Rs.4,500/-. That was in respect of an accident in the year 2004 and therefore, in respect of an **M.A.C.A No.2942 OF 2014** **6** accident which happened in 2010, the notional monthly income of the petitioner has to be taken as Rs.7,500/-. 5. From the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and taking note of the fact that the Medical Board has certified his disability as 20%, I find that, the petitioner had suffered loss of earnings for a period of six months. Accordingly, I re-fix the compensation under the head loss of earnings as **Rs.45,000/- (7,500x6)** . 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had claimed an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment only an amount of Rs.1,000/- has been awarded under the said head. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner was hospitalised for 20 days as an inpatient and the treatment he has undergone, I find, an amount of **Rs.4,000/-** can be awarded under the said head. 7. With regard to the compensation for pain and sufferings, the petitioner had claimed an amount of Rs.30,000/- and the Tribunal awarded only Rs.20,000/- **M.A.C.A No.2942 OF 2014** **7** under the said head. Taking note of the nature of injuries, I find, that the compensation can be refixed as **Rs.25,000/-** . 8. The petitioner submits that, the compensation for continuing and permanent/partial disability arrived at by the Tribunal is by taking note of the income of the petitioner as Rs.4,000/-, which has to be re-fixed on the basis of the notional income as per the guidelines of the Apex Court in **Ramachandrappa's case** (supra). I have already found that the notional monthly income of the petitioner has to be taken as Rs.7,500/-. Since the petitioner was aged 37 years at the time of accident, the Tribunal has rightly taken the multiplier as'15'.Therefore, the compensation for continuing and permanent/partial disability has to be re-fixed as **Rs.2,70,000/(7500x12x20/100x15).** 9. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head 'loss of amenities'. The fact that the petitioner was an inpatient for 20 days and taking note of the **M.A.C.A No.2942 OF 2014** **8** injuries sustained by the petitioner and the percentage of disability certified by the Medical Board and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been suffering from total Anosmia which is likely to be permanent, I find, an amount of **Rs.20,000/-** can be awarded under the said head. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is modified and re-fixed as follows:- |Sl. No|Heads|Amount awarded by Tribunal|Amount Re- fixed by this Court|Enhanced Amount| |---|---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earnings|16000 (4000x4)|45000 (7500x6)|29000| |2|Transportation|2000|2000|-| |3|Extra Nourishment|1000|4000|3000| |4|Damage to clothing|500|500|-| |5|Attendant Expenses|5000|5000|-| |6|Treatment expenses|161000|161000|-| |7|Pain and sufferings|20000|25000|5000| |8|Disability compensation|144000 (4000x12 x15x20/ 100)|270000 (7500x12x 15x20/100|126000| |9|Future treatment|20000|20000|-| |10|Loss of amenities|-|20000|20000| ||Total|3,69,500|5,52,500|1,83,000| **M.A.C.A No.2942 OF 2014** **9** In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and the petitioner is awarded an enhanced compensation of **Rs.1,83,000/-** (Rupees one lakh eighty three thousand only) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation, with proportionate costs, which I fix as 3000/-. Since the Tribunal has found that the Insurance Company has to satisfy the award the 2[nd] respondent insurer shall deposit the additional compensation granted in this appeal along with the interest and proportionate costs of Rs.3000/-, before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. ## **Sd/-** **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** SPR