High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-12-15Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation o...

HARIDAS A V v THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD

Case / Petition Number:MACA 3208/2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Justice Murali Purushothaman
Judgment Date: 2021-12-15
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed in part. The court enhances the compensation by Rs.1,91,006 beyond the Tribunal’s award, with interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing until realization, plus proportionate costs. The 3rd respondent (insurer) is to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest before the Tribunal within two months from receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The overall total award rises to Rs.5,10,337 (Rs.3,19,331 original award + Rs.1,91,006 enhanced amount).
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation of Rs.1,91,006 awarded with 8% interest from filing till realization; insurer to deposit enhanced amount within two months; overall compensation total Rs.5,10,337 with proportionate costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

HARIDAS A V

Respondents

The Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd (insurer)
Owner of lorry (name not stated)
Driver of lorry (name not stated)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. M.V. Amaresan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. S. Arun Raj

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA 3208/2014) before the Kerala High Court arises from a Tribunal award under O.P.(MV) No.514/2007, Kasaragod, for injuries suffered by Haridas A. V. on 11.03.2007 when his motorcycle KL-13/N-2891 collided with a lorry KL-10/J-2527. The Tribunal held the accident occurred due to the negligence of the lorry driver, and awarded Rs.3,19,331 under heads such as transport, loss of earnings, and medical expenses, directing the insurer (3rd respondent) to deposit the amount with 8% interest. The petitioner appealed challenging the quantum as inadequate. He argued that the Tribunal erred in using a notional income of Rs.3,500 per month; relying on Ramachandrappa, the income should be Rs.6,000 per month as of 2007, increasing loss of earnings to Rs.30,000 for five months (instead of Rs.17,500). He contends medical expenses should total Rs.1,97,337 (including Rs.23,146 as procedure charges for knee replacement) and that Rs.23,146 must be allowed as part of medical expenses. He seeks higher compensation for loss of amenities in life, pain and suffering, and continuing disability; argues for 20% disability and a multiplier of 15 per Sarla Verma. The High Court allows the appeal in part, enhancing compensation by Rs.1,91,006 with 8% interest from filing till realization, with proportionate costs, and directs deposit of the enhanced amount within two months. The total revised award becomes Rs.5,10,337.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional monthly income principle for self-employed claimants (Ramachandrappa)
Multiplier principle for calculating compensation (Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal’s quantum was inadequate. He relies on Ramachandrappa to fix notional monthly income at Rs.6,000 (2007) instead of Rs.3,500, arguing for Rs.30,000 as loss of earnings for five months. He asserts that medical expenses should be Rs.1,97,337 (including Rs.23,146 as knee-replacement procedure charges) and that Rs.23,146 must be allowed as part of medical expenses. He seeks higher compensation for loss of amenities of life, pain and suffering, and continuing disability; argues for 20% disability and multiplier 15 per Sarla Verma, leading to greater compensation and re-adjustment of other heads.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer/respondent contends the driver lacked a valid license; the accident resulted from rash riding by the petitioner; disputes the quantum as highly excessive; notes that policy is valid and opposes elevated medical and other heads of compensation.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	2011 (13) SCC 236	Positive	Court relies on Ramachandrappa to fix notional monthly income at Rs.6,000/month in 2007, affecting loss of earnings calculation.
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)	Positive	Court applies the multiplier principle (15) per Sarla Verma for computing continuing disability/overall compensation.

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 HARIDAS A V v THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA 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 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 MACA NO. 3208 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OPMV 514/2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS** ## **TRIBUNAL,KASARAGOD** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **HARIDAS A V AGED 44 YEARS S/O.M.V.GOPALAN, AMBILERI HOUSE, KARIVELLUR P.O, KARIVELLUR, KARIVELLUR VILLAGE, TALIPARAMBA TALUK,KANNUR DISTRICT** **BY ADV SRI.M.V.AMARESAN** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.3:** **THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, CITY BRANCH-1, RAMEEZ ARCADE, C.H.FLY OVER JUNCTION, CHEROOTTY ROAD, CALICUT, PIN 673 032.** **BY ADV SRI.S.ARUN RAJ** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA 3208/2014 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner in O.P. (MV) No.514/2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The parties in this appeal are referred to as per their status in the claim petition. 2. According to the petitioner, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KL-13/N-2891 from Cheruvathur to Karivellur on 11.03.2007, a lorry with Reg.No. KL-10/J-2527 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle and he was thrown on the road and sustained serious injuries. He was treated as inpatient in hospitals till 24.04.2007. The 2[nd] respondent is the owner of lorry and 3[rd] respondent is its insurer. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the 1[st] respondent and all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner. The petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- as total compensation for the injuries sustained in the MACA 3208/2014 3 accident. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 were set ex parte before the Tribunal. The 3[rd] respondent filed written statement admitting that at the time of the accident, the lorry was having a valid policy of insurance with them; but, contended that the 1[st] respondent-driver was not having valid driving licence and badge and that the accident happened due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by the petitioner. It was also contended that the amounts claimed under various heads as compensation are highly excessive. 4. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A7 series and X1 documents were marked. No oral evidence was adduced by either side. 5. The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the negligence of the 1[st] respondent. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,19,331/- as compensation payable to the petitioner under various heads as follows:- |1. Transport expenses|:|Rs. 8,000/-| |---|---|---| |2. Loss of earning|:|Rs. 17,500/-| |3. Extra nourishment|:|Rs. 7,000/-| |4. Damages to clothing and articles|:|Rs. 1,000/-| MACA 3208/2014 4 |5. Medical expenses : 6. Loss of amenities and enjoyments of life : 7. Expenses for bystander : 8. Expenses for pain and suffering : 9. Expenses for continuing disability : TOTAL :|Rs. 1,74,191/- Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 6,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 80,640/-| |---|---| || Rs. 3,19,331/-| (Rupees Three lakhs Nineteen thousand Three hundred and thirty one only) The 3[rd] respondent insurance company was directed to satisfy the award and to deposit the said amount with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till actual payment with proportionate costs. 6. According to the petitioner, the amounts awarded as compensation under various heads are totally inadequate. 7. Towards loss of earnings, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.17,500/- as compensation. To determine the compensation under the said head, the Tribunal has taken the notional monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.3,500/-. According to the petitioner, he was a building contractor. Going by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**v**_ **Ramachandrappa . Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited** [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional monthly income of MACA 3208/2014 5 the petitioner has to be taken as Rs.6,000/- as on 2007. Accordingly, I refix the notional monthly income of the petitioner as **Rs.6,000/-** . The petitioner was unable to do any work for five months as a result of the accident. Therefore, I re-fix the compensation payable under the head loss of earnings as Rs.30,000/- (6,000×5). An amount of Rs.17,500/- was already awarded under the said head and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to an enhanced amount of **Rs.12,500/-** under the head loss of earnings. 8. Under the head medical expenses, the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. The petitioner had produced Ext. A7 series medical bills for an amount of Rs. 1,97,337.58/- before the Tribunal. The bill dated 31.07.2007 for an amount of Rs. 23,146/- was disputed by the counsel for the insurer stating that the same represents 'procedure charges' and this amount cannot be reckoned as expense for treatment. The Tribunal has observed that the counsel for petitioner could not explain as to what is ‘procedure charges’ and therefore the sum of Rs. 23,146/towards procedure charges was reduced from the total bill of MACA 3208/2014 6 Rs.1,97,337/- and a sum of Rs. 1,74,191/- alone was awarded as expense for treatment. It is evident from Ext.A4 discharge summary dated 12.08.2007 that the petitioner had undergone a surgery on 31.07.2007 for Total Knee Replacement of Right Knee (TKR Right Knee) under spinal anesthesia. The bill dated 31.07.2007 for an amount of Rs. 23,146/- was produced along with I.A. No. 1709 of 2011 before the Tribunal and the document is the invoice issued by the orthopedic implant distributor to the Hospital towards the cost of knee replacement implants, wherein the Hospital has endorsed their bill for procedure charges of Rs. 23,146/-. On a conjoint reading of the said document with Ext. A4 discharge summary, there cannot be any doubt that the ‘procedure charges’ refers to charges for the procedure for TKR Right Knee done on 31.07.2007. The said bill is therefore part of the expense for treatment and has to be allowed. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.1,97,337/- (1,74,191+23,146) towards medical expenses. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to an enhanced amount of **Rs.23,146/** - towards medical expenses. 9. Towards compensation for loss of amenities in life, the Tribunal MACA 3208/2014 7 has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries and the hospitalisation and surgeries the petitioner had to undergo, an amount of Rs.25,000/- will be a just and reasonable compensation under this head. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to **Rs.15,000/-** as enhanced compensation for loss of amenities in life. 10. For compensation for pain and suffering, taking note of the nature of injuries of the petitioner, I am of the view that an amount of Rs.20,000/- can be awarded under the said head. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of **Rs.5,000/-** under the said head. 11. For compensation for continuing disability, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.80,640/-. Ext.X1 is the medical certificate issued by the District Disability Board assessing the permanent physical disability of the petitioner as 20%. The Tribunal has taken 12% whole body disability. I do not think that it was proper for the Tribunal to scale down the percentage of disability at 12%. The Tribunal ought to have taken the percentage of disability at 20% as certified in Ext. X1 without mechanically pegging down the disability to 12%. Therefore, the percentage of disability of the MACA 3208/2014 8 petitioner has to be taken as 20%. The petitioner was aged 37 years at the time of the accident and the multiplier to be applied is '15' and not '16' as per the decision in **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010** **(2) KLT 802 (SC)]** . Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,16,000/- (6000×12×20×15/100) towards continuing disability. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to an amount of **Rs.1,35,360/-** (2,16,000-80,640) as enhanced compensation towards continuing disability. 11. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is modified and re-fixed as follows:- **==> picture [488 x 302] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** Amount Amount re- Enhanced awarded by fixed by this amount Sl.No Heads Tribunal Court 1 Transport expenses Rs. 8,000/- Rs. 8000/- - 2 Loss of earning Rs. 17,500/- Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 12,500/- 3 Extra nourishment Rs. 7,000/- Rs. 7,000/- - 4 Damages to clothing Rs. 1,000/- Rs. 1,000/- - and articles 5 Medical expenses Rs. 1,74,191/- Rs. 1,97,337/- Rs. 23,146/- 6 Loss of amenities and Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 15,000/- enjoyments of life **----- End of picture text -----** MACA 3208/2014 9 **==> picture [488 x 173] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** - 7 Expenses for bystander Rs. 6,000/- Rs. 6000/- 8 Expenses for pain and Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 5,000/- suffering 9 Expenses for Rs. 80,640/- Rs.2,16,000/- 1,35,360/- continuing disability TOTAL Rs.3,19,331/- Rs.5,10,337/- Rs.1,91,006/- ========= **----- End of picture text -----** In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and the petitioner is awarded an enhanced compensation of **1,91,006/-** (Rupees One Lakh Ninety one Thousand Six only) with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation, with proportionate costs. The 3[rd] respondent Insurance Company shall deposit the additional compensation granted in this appeal along with interest 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**