High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-08-23Appeal Allowed; enhanced compensation of Rs.81,...

D. Jayachandran v. Suresh, Babu and The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA No.1915 of 2010

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Badhrudeen
Judgment Date: 2022-08-23
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation of Rs.81,400 with interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal, payable by the third respondent Insurance Company from the date of petition till realisation, excluding 159 days for the period of delay in filing the appeal. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount in the appellant’s name within two months from the date of pronouncement, and on such deposit, the appellant would be entitled to withdrawal/release.
Final Disposition: Appeal Allowed; enhanced compensation of Rs.81,400; insurer to deposit within two months; release on deposit.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

D. Jayachandran

Respondents

Suresh
Babu
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. K.M. Firoz
• Smt. M. Shajna

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. K.S. Santhi

Case Synopsis & Summary

D. Jayachandran, the appellant, sustained serious injuries in a road traffic collision on the NH47 near Alappuzha when an autorickshaw allegedly driven rashly collided with his motorcycle. He filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, seeking compensation of Rs 7,00,000. The Tribunal awarded Rs 2,15,000 with 7.5% interest, finding the claimants’ evidence on disability and income inadequate and accepting the medical evidence of 10% permanent disability. The appellant challenged the award on multiple fronts: (i) the multiplier for post‑retirement disability; (ii) the monthly income used for calculating post‑retirement disability; and (iii) the adequacy of compensation for heads like loss of disability income, loss of amenities, pain and suffering, and extra nourishment. The appellant argued that, since he was a police constable with a retirement age of 56, a higher multiplier (9) should apply and the income should accord with Ext.A21 showing Rs.10,000 per month, not Rs.2,500. The insurer pressed Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., contending the pension factor must be considered in post‑retirement disability calculations. The High Court examined the evidence, held that the post‑retirement disability income required recalibration, and ultimately allowed the appeal, enhancing the total compensation to Rs.81,400 with the same rate of interest and directed deposit by the insurer within two months, with release on deposit.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 173, Motor Vehicles ActSection 166, Motor Vehicles Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in applying an incorrect multiplier for post‑retirement disability and in fixing the monthly income too low. Since the appellant is a police constable with retirement at 56, a multiplier of 9 should be applied, and the monthly income used to assess post‑retirement disability should reflect Ext.A21’s Rs.10,000 per month rather than Rs.2,500. He invoked Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. to argue that pension post‑retirement income must be considered in disability calculations. He asked for recalculation of loss of disability income, loss of amenities, pain and suffering, and extra nourishment, in light of the evidence and medical records showing serious injuries and a need for greater compensation.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer’s counsel urged following the principle laid down in Ramachandrappa, arguing that post‑retirement disability must be computed by taking into account pension prospects, which would reduce the effective income for disability calculations. They argued against applying a higher multiplier and for adherence to the Tribunal’s approach in determining income, asserting Ramachandrappa’s framework to be applicable, given the pension entitlement after retirement. They contested any substantial enhancement beyond the Tribunal’s award and supported the financial heads as calculated by the Tribunal, maintaining that the existing compensation already reflects the injuries and consequences.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Mentioned Only	The judgment discusses the Ramachandrappa principle as part of the arguments on post‑retirement disability income but does not explicitly adopt or overrule it; it is cited for context in considering how pension post‑retirement income should influence disability calculations.

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 D. Jayachandran v. Suresh, Babu and The Oriental 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 A. BADHARUDEEN** **TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 1ST BHADRA, 1944** **MACA NO.1915 OF 2010** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 22.04.2009 IN OP(MV)NO.838/2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** D.JAYACHANDRAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. DAMODARAN, KOCHARIKARTHIL HOUSE, THAIKKATTUSSERY.P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.M.SHAJNA ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** 1 SURESH, S/O.THOMAS, SURESH BHAVAN, PUNNAPRA SOUTH PANCHAYATH, WARD NO. 4, AKAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2 BABU, S/O.CHANDY THOMAS, SHOBANA NIVAS, PUNNAPRA.P.O., PUNNAPRA SOUTH, PANCHAYATH WARD NO.2, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3 THE ORIENTIAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV SMT.K.S.SANTHI THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 23.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **M.A.C.A No.1915 of 2010** 2 ## **JUDGMENT** This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging award dated 22.04.2009 in O.P.(M.V) No.838/2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, at the instance of the petitioner. The respondents before the Tribunal are the respondents herein also. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Brief facts of the case: **==> picture [380 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [415 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** appellant was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-7AQ-6870 through AlappuzhaKollam NH47 road, an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-4E-6382 driven by the 1[st] respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle and, consequently, the appellant sustained very **M.A.C.A No.1915 of 2010** 3 serious injuries. He was immediately taken to Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha and from there he was taken to Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam and treated there as inpatient for several days. 2[nd] respondent is the owner and 3[rd] respondent is the insurer of the vehicle. On the above facts, an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act was preferred by the appellant before the M.A.C.T, Alappuzha claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- from respondents 1 to 3. 4. 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents were declared ex-parte by the Tribunal. 5. The 3[rd] respondent Insurance Company filed written statement and admitted policy while disputing the liability. 6. The Tribunal adjudicated the matter marking Exts.A1 to A21 on the part of the appellant. Ext.B1 marked on the side of the Insurance Company. Apart from that Exts.C1 and X1 also got marked. ## **M.A.C.A No.1915 of 2010** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 7. The Tribunal appraised the evidence and finally granted Rs.2,15,000/- as compensation along with 7.5% interest. 8. While highlighting inadequacy of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal to fix 'post retirement disability' as '8' is incorrect and '9' is the proper multiplier since the retirement age of a Police Constable in Kerala state is 56 years. This submission is not in dispute. Therefore, '9' is taken as the proper multiplier in this case. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant further that Rs.2,500/- was the income taken by the Tribunal for calculating 'loss of post retirement disability' and the same is quite insufficient. It is submitted that as per Ext.A21, salary statement, the monthly income is Rs.10,000/- and, therefore, the said sum ought to have 5 ## **M.A.C.A No.1915 of 2010** been considered by the Tribunal. 10. But the learned counsel for the insurer would submit that as far as 'post retirement disability' is concerned, the income provided in _**Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.**_ : **(2011) 13 SCC** **236,** has to be followed, taking note of the fact that the appellant would get pension after retirement. 11. Before considering the question as to whether what is the monthly income to be considered for assessing post retirement disability, it is to be noted that the appellant sustained crush injury on the right foot, exposing bones on the right foot, fracture of clavicle (L), fracture neck of scapula (L) etc., and he underwent treatment for the same as could be gathered from Exts.A9, A10 and A11 discharge summaries supported by Exts.A16, A17 and A19. As per Ext.C1 disability ## **M.A.C.A No.1915 of 2010** 6 certificate, 10% disability was assessed by the Medical Board, and the Tribunal accepted the same as such. The age of the appellant was 33 years at the time of accident. It is an admitted fact that the appellant is still continuing in police service. However, it has to be noted that Rs.2,500/- taken by the Tribunal to fix the 'post retirement disability' is on lower side and I am of the view that Rs.8,000/- ought to be fixed in this matter for re-calculating the disability. Therefore, the 'loss of disability income' requires re-calculation. Thus, **==> picture [211 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** Out of which, Rs.24,000/- was granted by the Tribunal. Thus, the appellant is entitled to the balance of **Rs.62,400/-** more under the head of 'loss of disability income'. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal granted Rs.10,000/- alone under the head 'loss of **M.A.C.A No.1915 of 2010** 7 amenities'. The appellant is entitled to get more amount under this head since he has been suffering from consequence of injuries. Therefore, **Rs.10,000/-** more is granted under the head 'loss of amenities'. Considering the injuries as discussed, I am inclined to grant **Rs.5,000/-** more under the head 'pain and sufferings' and **Rs.4,000/-** more under the head 'extra nourishment'. 13. In the result, this appeal is allowed. It is held that the appellant is entitled to get **Rs.81,400/-** (Rupees Eighty one Thousand and four Hundred Only) as enhanced compensation with the same rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, payable by the 3[rd] respondent, Insurance Company from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation, excluding interest for the period of 159 days in filing this appeal as ordered in the order dated 11.10.2021 in C.M. Application No.2/2010 ## **M.A.C.A No.1915 of 2010** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** (C.M.Application No.2446/2010). The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount in the name of the appellant within two months from today. On deposit, the appellant is entitled to release the same. Sd/- ## **A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE.** ww