High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-11-15Partial allowed; enhanced compensation by Rs. 1...

Bindhu w/o Sathyan Parassery v. Antony Jose Kottanellur, Bijoy s/o Paramu, and National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 1495 OF 2010

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2021-11-15
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed in part. The compensation is enhanced by Rs. 12,000 (Rs. 6,000 for loss of earnings and Rs. 6,000 for loss of amenities). Interest is awarded at 7% per annum from the date of petition to realisation, with 96 days’ delay deducted. The 3rd respondent insurer is ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation together with costs before the Tribunal within 60 days from today, and on such deposit, the amount shall be disbursed to the appellant as per law.
Final Disposition: Partial allowed; enhanced compensation by Rs. 12,000; 7% interest; costs Rs. 4,000; deposit before Tribunal within 60 days; disbursement to appellant thereafter.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Bindhu w/o Sathyan Parassery, House, Kottanellur Desom, Village P.O., Mukundapuram Taluk

Respondents

Antony Jose, Kottanellur P.O., Thrissur District
Bijoy s/o Paramu Kurupathukattill House, Kottanellur Desom, Thrissur District
The Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kollannur Devasy Smark Building, Round North, Thrissur

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. V. Binoy Ram

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Joe Kalliath
• Sri. Murali Purushothaman

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala appeal arises from MACA No. 1495 of 2010 involving Bindhu, a coolie, who sustained injuries in a motor accident on 18 May 2006 while travelling in a Maruthi Omni van owned by the first respondent and insured by the third respondent. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, had consolidated several petitions and, by a common award, awarded Rs. 18,400 with interest at 7% per annum and costs against the insurer, after finding the second respondent negligent. The appellant challenged the quantum, arguing that the notional income of a coolie should be recalibrated in light of Supreme Court guidance (Ramachandrappa) and that compensation for loss of earnings and loss of amenities required enhancement. The tribunal had fixed the appellant’s notional income at Rs. 1,500/month, while the appellant claimed Rs. 3,000/month. The High Court, citing Ramachandrappa (2011) to fix notional income at Rs. 3,000/month for 2006 and after analyzing the injury and hospitalization, increased the loss of earnings and loss of amenities, resulting in an overall enhancement of Rs. 12,000. The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with costs within 60 days, with disbursal to the appellant thereafter. The appeal was partially allowed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant submits that the Tribunal’s quantum of Rs. 18,400 was too meagre in light of the injuries (fracture of the symphysis mandible and loosened incisors), prolonged treatment, and occupation as a coolie. Citing Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236, she argues that notional income for a coolie in 2004–2006 era should be higher, which would yield greater compensation under loss of earnings and related heads. The petition seeks enhancement of compensation with interest and costs, aligning with evidence of higher income and greater impact on earning capacity.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents/insurer contend that the Tribunal’s award was based on available evidence and that policy terms and age/income/occupation claims were properly argued. They challenge any further uplift in notional income, emphasise that the insurer’s liability should reflect the tribunal’s assessment, and resist additional liability beyond the amount already awarded. The 3rd respondent admits the existence of the insurance policy but maintains the quantum and its distribution as just, pending due lawful process.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Cited as authority for fixing the notional income of a coolie; the court follows the same yardstick to refix the appellant’s notional income at Rs. 3,000 per month for 2006.

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 Bindhu w/o Sathyan Parassery v. Antony Jose Kottanellur, Bijoy s/o Paramu, and 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 C.S.DIAS** **MONDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1943 MACA NO. 1495 OF 2010** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 931/2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR** ## **APPELLANT/S:** BINDHU W/O SATHYAN PARASSERY HOUSE, KOTTANELLUR DESOM, VILLAGE P.O.,, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV SRI.V.BINOY RAM ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 ANTONY JOSE KOTTANELLUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2 BIJOY S/O PARAMU KURUPATHUKATTIL HOUSE, KOTTANELLUR DESOM,, VILLAGE P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3 THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. KOLLANNUR DEVASY SMARK BUILDING, ROUND NORTH,, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.JOE KALLIATH SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA NO. 1495 OF 2010 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant was the petitioner in OP(MV) No.931/2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents before the Tribunal. 2. The appellant had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries that she sustained in an accident on 18.05.2006. It was her case that, on the above said date, while she was travelling with her family in a Maruthi Omni van (Van) bearing registration No.KL-8-AD812, which was driven by the 2[nd] respondent in a rash and negligent manner through the Irinjalakuda-Kodungalloor road and when they reached a place namely Nadaparamba, the 2[nd] respondent lost control of the van and it jumped into a canal. The appellant sustained injuries including a fracture of symphysis mandible and her two lower incisor tooth were loosened. She was treated as an inpatient at the MACA NO. 1495 OF 2010 3 Irinjalakuda Co-Operative Hospital from the date of the accident, till 22.05.2006. The appellant was a coolie worker by profession and was earning a monthly income of Rs.3,000/-. The van was owned by the 1[st] respondent and insured with the 3[rd] respondent. Hence, the appellant claimed a compensation of Rs.1,01,000/- from the respondents, which was limited to Rs.50,000/-. 3. Three other injured in the accident had also filed O.P (M.V) Nos. 932/2006, 933/2006 and 1052/2006 before the same Tribunal. 4. The 1[st] respondent had filed a written statement refuting the allegations in the claim petition. The 2[nd] respondent did not contest the proceedings and was set exparte. 5. The 3[rd] respondent filed separate written statements in all the claim petitions disputing the age, income and occupation of the injured. However, the 3[rd] respondent admitted that the van had a valid insurance policy. MACA NO. 1495 OF 2010 4 6. The Tribunal consolidated and jointly tried the claim petitions. 7. The petitioners in all the claim petitions produced and marked Exts.A1 to A17 in evidence. The 3[rd] respondent produced insurance policies which were marked as Exts.B1 and B2. 8. The Tribunal, by its common award, allowed the captioned claim petition by permitting the appellant to recover from the 3[rd] respondent an amount of Rs. 18,400/with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs. 9. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner is in appeal. 10. Heard Sri. Binoy Ram. V, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and Sri. Joe Kalliyath, the learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent/ insurer. 11. The sole question that arises for consideration in the appeal is whether the quantum of compensation MACA NO. 1495 OF 2010 5 awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just ? ## **Negligence and Liability** 12. It is proved by Ext.A2 charge sheet filed by the Irinjalakuda Police in Crime No.326/2006 that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2[nd] respondent. Admittedly, the 1[st] respondent was the owner and the 3[rd] respondent was the insurer of the van. The 3[rd] respondent has not proved that the 1[st] respondent had violated the insurance policy conditions. Similarly, the respondents have not let in any contra evidence to discredit the charge sheet. Therefore, the 3[rd] respondent is to indemnify the liability of the 1[st] respondent arising out of the accident. ## **Income of the appellant** 13. The appellant had claimed that she was a coolie worker by profession and was earning a monthly income of Rs.3,000/-. However, for the want of materials, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.1,500/-. MACA NO. 1495 OF 2010 6 14. In **Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insruance Company Ltd.** : (2011) 13 SCC 236, the Honourable Supreme Court has fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year 2004 at Rs.4,500/- per month. 15. Following the yardstick in the afore-cited decision, considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2006 and the appellant had claimed Rs. 3,000/- as monthly income, I refix the notional income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month as claimed in the petition. ## **Loss of earnings** 16. It is proved that the appellant had sustained a fracture of symphysis mandible and her two lower incisor tooth were loosened. She was treated as an inpatient for a period of 4 days. In the said circumstances, I hold that the appellant, especially being a coolie worker by profession, was indisposed for a period of three months. MACA NO. 1495 OF 2010 7 17. In view of the refixation of the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month, I enhance the compensation for 'loss of earnings' to Rs.9,000/-, i.e., an enhancement by Rs. 6,000/-. ## **Loss of amenities** 18. The appellant had claimed a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities. However, the Tribunal only awarded an amount of Rs.4,000/- under the said head. 19. Taking into account the fact that the appellant was treated as an inpatient for a period of 4 days, that she was indisposed for a period of three months and she was a coolie worker by profession, I hold that the appellant is entitled a further amount of Rs. 6,000/- towards 'loss of amenities'. 20. With respect to the other heads of compensation, I find that the Tribunal has awarded a reasonable and just compensation. MACA NO. 1495 OF 2010 8 In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.12,000/- ( i.e. an amount of Rs. 6,000 towards loss of earnings and an amount of Rs. 6,000/- towards loss of amenities) with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, after deducting interest for a period of 96 days i.e., the period of delay in filing the appeal and as ordered by this Court on 15.09.2021 in C.M. Appln. No. 1/2010, and a cost of Rs.4,000/-. The 3[rd] respondent is ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest and cost before the Tribunal, within a period of 60 days from today. Immediately on the amount being deposited, the same shall be disbursed to the appellant in accordance with law. **C.S.DIAS JUDGE** avs