Chandran v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.107 OF 2011** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) No.475/2007 DATED 04-03-2010 OF PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **CHANDRAN, S/O. KARUNAKARAN, PULIYULLAKANDIYIL HOUSE, CHELAVOOR PO,, NR.THIRUTHIKKAVU, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RASHMI** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**BINU K. MATHEW (DELETED)**| |---|---| ||**PALLIAMBIL HOUSE, WEST OTHERS, THIRUVALLA,,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.**| |**2**|**SURESH.K.G.(DELETED)SO.GOPALAN.R**| ||**SURESH BHAVAN, THEKKUTHODU,,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.**| ||**(R1 AND R2 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT**| |---|---| ||**THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED**| ||**27/11/15 IN IA NO.4113/15).**| |**3**|**THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD**| ||**DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SILVER PLAZA BUILDING,,**| ||**I.G.ROAD, KOZHIKODE 673 001.**| ||**R1, R3 BY ADV. SMT.A.SREEKALA**| **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA No.107 of 2011 -2- ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant is the claimant in O.P(MV)No.475 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident, which occurred on 28.11.2006, while he was unloading goods from a lorry bearing registration No.KL-03/A-9190 owned by the 1[st] respondent, driven by the 2[nd] respondent and insured with the 3[rd] respondent. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of lorry by the 2[nd] respondent, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under various heads.. 2. Before the Tribunal, the 2[nd] respondent driver remained absent and he was set ex parte. The 1[st] respondent owner filed written statement denying negligence alleged against the 2[nd] respondent driver. 3. The 3[rd] respondent insurer filed written statement admitting the insurance coverage of the lorry involved in the MACA No.107 of 2011 -3- accident; however, denying the negligence alleged against its driver. The insurer disputed the age, occupation, monthly income, etc. stated in the claim petition. The insurer contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive. 4. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant. The document marked as Ext.C1 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. 5. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. Since insurance coverage of the said vehicle was not in dispute, the insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,57,576/-, together with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from 08.02.2007 till date of deposit, with a cost of Rs.1,000/-, and the insurer was directed to satisfy the award. 6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant is before this MACA No.107 of 2011 -4- Court in this appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ claimant and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent/insurer. 8. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads. 9. In **State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur [(2003) 7 SCC 484]** the Apex Court held that the Tribunal under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense 'damages' which in turn appears to it to be 'just and reasonable'. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has be to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be 'just' and it cannot be a bonanza; not a MACA No.107 of 2011 -5- source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. 10. In **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the concept of 'just compensation' and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability. 11. In the instant case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads reads thus; |Heads<br> <br> <br>Transport to hospital<br> <br>Extra nourishment<br> <br>Loss of earnings<br>|Amount<br> <br>claimed<br> <br>2,000/-<br>2,000/-<br>25,000/-|Amount<br>Description<br> awarded<br>500/-<br>300/-<br>3,000/-2,000x1 ½ months| |---|---|---| MACA No.107 of 2011 -6- Bystander's expenses 10,000/4,200/- 100 x 42 days Treatment expenses 30,000/9,856/- 1,13,842 – 3,986 Pain and sufferings 30,000/13,000/Loss of disability 1,80,000/- 1,26,720/2,000 x12x11x48/100 -------------Total 1,57,576/======== 12. The accident occurred on 28.01.2006. At the time of accident, the appellant was aged 53 years. The appellant claimed a monthly income of Rs.6,634/- as loading and unloading worker. The appellant has not chosen to mount the box to prove his monthly income. In the absence of any reliable materials, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income notionally as Rs.2,000/-, for the purpose of assessing compensation under various heads. 13. In **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236]** the Apex Court reckoned the monthly income of a coolie (manual labourer), who met with a road accident in the year 2004, at the age of 35 years, notionally as Rs.4,500/-. The Apex Court held that, the claimant who was working as a coolie cannot be expected to produce any MACA No.107 of 2011 -7- documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in the facts of the said case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant. The Apex Court made it clear that, in all cases and in all circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant, in the absence of supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guess work, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time. 14. In **Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2014) 2 SCC 735]** , taking note of the earlier decision in **Ramachandrappa's case (supra)** , the Apex Court reckoned the monthly income of a vegetable vendor, who met with a road accident in the year 2008, at the age of 24 years, notionally as Rs.6,500/-. In the said decision, MACA No.107 of 2011 -8- the Apex Court held that, a labourer in an unorganised sector doing his own business cannot be expected to produce documents to prove his monthly income. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal and the High Court to ask for evidence to prove his monthly income. Going by the state of economy prevailing at that time and the rising prices in agricultural products, the Apex Court accepted his case that a vegetable vendor is reasonably capable of earning 6,500/- per month. 15. In the absence of any reliable evidence, considering the economic conditions prevailing at the time of accident, i.e., during the year 2006, and taking note of the fixation of notional monthly income by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, this Court deem it appropriate to re-fix the monthly income of the appellant notionally as Rs.5,500/-, for the purpose of assessing compensation under various heads. 16. The document marked as Ext.A2 is the wound certificate and Ext.A3 is the discharge card. As per medical MACA No.107 of 2011 -9- records, in the accident, he sustained fracture left radius, comminuted segmental with Type II open, lacerated wound 4x5cm on forehead and 3x2cm on right forearm. He had undergone inpatient treatment for a period of 51 days. Ext.A7 series of medical bills are for a sum of Rs.13,482/-. On verification of the bills, the Tribunal found that bills for Rs.2,007/- are not in the name of the appellant and another bills for Rs.1,979/- is only an invoice. After deducting an amount of Rs.3,986/- covered by the aforesaid bills, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.9,856/- as treatment expenses. 17. In Ext.C1 disability certificate, the Medical Board assessed the permanent disability of the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, as 48%. The Tribunal accepted the percentage of permanent disability assessed by the Medical Board, for the purpose of awarding compensation under various heads. 18. Towards loss of earning, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/-, at the rate of Rs.2,000/- for a period of 1½ months. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and MACA No.107 of 2011 -10- the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the period of 1 ½ months fixed by the Tribunal for granting loss of earning is re-fixed as 5 months. Since the monthly income of the appellant is re-fixed notionally as Rs.5,500/-, the compensation under the head loss of earning is re-fixed as Rs.27,500/- (5,500 x 5), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.24,500/-** (27,500 – 3,000). 19. Towards transportation to hospital, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.500/-. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for 51 days. The accident is of the year 2006. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the compensation under this head is re-fixed as Rs.3,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.2,500/-** (3,000 – 500). 20. Towards bystander expenses the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,200/-. Towards extra nourishment, the Tribunal MACA No.107 of 2011 -11- awarded a further sum of Rs.300/-. The accident is of the year 2006 and the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for 51 days. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the compensation under the head bystander expenses is re-fixed as Rs.10,200/- (200 x 51), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.6,000/-** (10,200 – 4,200). The compensation under the head extra nourishment is re-fixed as Rs.7,650/- (150 x 51), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.7,350/-** (7,650 - 300). 21. No compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal towards damage to clothing and articles. Considering the fact that the accident is of the year 2006, this Court deem it appropriate to award a compensation of **Rs.1,000/-** under this head. 22. Towards medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.9,856/-, covered by Ext.A7 series of medical bills. In the absence of any further materials, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head is just and MACA No.107 of 2011 -12- reasonable, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. 23. As compensation towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.13,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering is re-fixed as Rs.25,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.12,000/-** (25,000 – 13,000). 24. In **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121]** , the Apex Court, after referring to its earlier decisions in **Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176]** , **U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362]** and **New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie [(2005) 10 SCC 720]** held that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table in paragraph 40 of the said decision [prepared by applying **Susamma Thomas** , **Trilok Chandra** and **Charlie** ], which starts with an operative multiplier of **18** [for the age groups of MACA No.107 of 2011 -13- 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years], reduced by one unit for every five years, i.e., multiplier of **17** for 26 to 30 years, multiplier of **16** for 31 to 35 years, multiplier of **15** for 36 to 40 years, multiplier of **14** for 41 to 45 years, and multiplier of **13** for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, i.e., multiplier of **11** for 51 to 55 years, multiplier of **9** for 56 to 60 years, multiplier of **7** for 61 to 65 years and multiplier of **5** for 66 to 70 years. ## 25. In **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay** **Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, as far as the multiplier is concerned, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in paragraph 19 of **Sarla Verma** , read with paragraph 42 of the said judgment. 26. In the instant case, as on the date of accident, the appellant was aged 53 years. In the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in **Sarla Verma's case** and **Pranay Sethi's case** referred to supra, the multiplier of **11** applied by the Tribunal is correct and proper. MACA No.107 of 2011 -14- 27. Towards compensation for permanent disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,26,720/- (2,000 x 12 x 11 x 48/100). Since the monthly income of the appellant is re-fixed notionally as Rs.5,500/-, applying the multiplier of 11 applicable to the age group of the appellant and the percentage of permanent disability as 48%, the compensation under the head permanent disability is re-fixed as Rs.3,48,480/- (5,500 x 12 x 11 x 48/100), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.2,21,760/-** (3,48,480 – 1,26,720). 28. Towards loss of amenities no amount has been awarded by the Tribunal . In Ext.C1 disability certificate the permanent disability of the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, is assessed as 48%. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and 48% permanent disability on account of those injuries, as assessed in Ext.C1 disability certificate, this Court deem it appropriate to grant an amount of **Rs.50,000/-** under this head. 29. In the result, the appellant/claimant will be entitled MACA No.107 of 2011 -15- for payment of an additional compensation of **Rs.3,25,110/-** (Rupees three lakhs twenty five thousand one hundred and ten only) [24,500 + 2,500 + 6,000 + 7,350 + 1,000 + 12,000 + 2,21,760 + 50,000] in this appeal, which will carry interest at the rate of **8%** per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The 3[rd] respondent insurer shall satisfy the additional compensation granted in this appeal, together with interest, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after deducting the liability, if any, of the appellant/claimant towards Balance Court Fee and Legal Benefit Fund. The disbursement of additional compensation to the appellant/claimant shall be made taking note of the law on the point and in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06.09.2019 and clarified further in Official Memorandum No.D1-62475/2016 dated 07.11.2019. The appellant shall provide his bank account details (attested copy of the relevant page of the Bank Passbook having details of the Bank Account Number and IFSC Code of the branch) before the Tribunal, MACA No.107 of 2011 -16- with copy to the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. This appeal is disposed of as above. No order as to costs. All pending interlocutory applications in this appeal are closed. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** das