High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-12-21Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation of Rs.55,...

Haridas v. Chola Mandalam M S General Insurance Co Ltd

Case / Petition Number:MACA No.1567 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman, J.
Judgment Date: 2021-12-21
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The Court held that where Ext.A6 disability certificate was issued by a doctor examined before the Tribunal, it should be taken as the disability percentage (16%), and the Tribunal should not mechanically apply a lower percentage absent a Medical Board referral. Consequently, the compensation is recalculated, resulting in an enhanced award of Rs.55,400 over the Tribunal’s award, with 9% interest per annum and proportionate costs. The respondent-insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount before the Tribunal within two months from receipt of the judgment.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation of Rs.55,400 with 9% interest per annum and costs; enhanced amount to be deposited within two months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Haridas V.

Respondents

1st respondent (Owner of autorickshaw)
2nd respondent (Driver)
Chola Mandalam M S General Insurance Co Ltd

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Jacob Sebastian

Counsels for Respondents

• P. Jacob Mathew
• Mathews Jacob Sr.

Case Synopsis & Summary

Haridas v. Chola Mandalam M S General Insurance Co Ltd is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal arising from O.P. (MV) No.687 of 2012 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. The petitioner, Haridas, sustained injuries to his leg when an autorickshaw (KL 09-AB-4274) allegedly driven rashly collided with a compound wall. The 1st (owner) and 2nd (driver) respondents were ex parte; the 3rd respondent insurer contested the rash-ness and the quantum of compensation, though it admitted the existence of a valid policy. PW1, a doctor, examined the claimant and produced disability Ext.A6, which certified a 16% permanent physical disability, along with Exts. A1–A9. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,36,750 with 9% interest and costs, noting that the disability percentage used for calculating future loss and earning power was 10% rather than the 16% certified by Ext.A6. The appellant argued that the doctor’s certificate, the testimony, and the principle in Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar and another (2011) 1 SCC 343 required accepting the 16% disability and not mechanically downscaling it. The High Court agreed that Ext.A6, issued by a doctor examined before the Tribunal, should be treated as 16% unless referred for Medical Board evaluation, and directed recalculation, resulting in enhanced compensation of Rs.55,400 in addition to the earlier award, with 9% interest and proportionate costs, and an order to deposit the enhanced amount within two months. The appeal is allowed as above, with the insurer and respondents bearing the updated liability.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Doctor’s disability certificate should not be mechanically discarded if examined before the Tribunal; refer to Medical Board if not satisfied.
Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar and another, 2011 (1) SCC 343 – cited principle supporting acceptance of medical certificate when the doctor testifies before the Tribunal.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext.A6, a disability certificate certifying 16% permanent disability issued by a doctor examined before the Tribunal, must be accepted for computing compensation. Citing Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar, it argues the Tribunal could not discard the certificate or reduce the disability percentage without referring the matter to a Medical Board. The appellant seeks higher compensation for permanent disability, loss of earning power, and related heads, based on the 16% figure.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer contends that the disability certificate is not a Medical Board evaluation and the Tribunal could justifiably scale down the disability percentage. It also challenges the quantum claimed as excessive and disputing robustness of the medical evidence, arguing for maintaining the Tribunal’s award unless properly justified.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar and another	2011 (1) SCC 343	Positive	Cited to support the principle that a disability certificate issued by a doctor examined before the Tribunal should be accepted; if the Tribunal is not satisfied, it should refer to a Medical Board rather than mechanically reducing the disability percentage.

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 v. Chola Mandalam M S General 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 TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021/30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 MACA NO. 1567 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 687/2012 OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD / II ADDITIONAL MACT, PALAKKAD** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **HARIDAS. V, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 46 YEARS, MALAYANCHATHU, VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD, NOW RESIDING AT ASIA LINE 35/688, THAMARAKULAM VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD.** **BY ADV SRI. JACOB SEBASTIAN** **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.3:** **CHOLA MANDALAM M S GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI 600 001 BY ADVS. SRI. P.JACOB MATHEW SRI. MATHEWS JACOB SR.** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **M.A.C.A NO.1567 OF 2016** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** This appeal is preferred by the petitioner in O.P. (MV) No.687 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded. The parties in this appeal are referred to as per their status in the claim petition. 2. While the petitioner was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing Registration No. KL 09-AB-4274 driven by the 2[nd] respondent, it hit against a compound wall on the side of the road and the petitioner sustained injuries on his leg. According to the petitioner, the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw by the 2[nd] respondent. The 1[st] respondent is the owner of the autorickshaw and the 3[rd] respondent is the insurer. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 were ex parte before the Tribunal. The 3[rd] respondent Insurance Company filed a written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy **M.A.C.A NO.1567 OF 2016** **3** of insurance at the time of accident, however, denied that the accident happened due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the 2[nd] respondent. It was also contended that, the amounts claimed under various heads are excessive and exorbitant. The Doctor who issued the disability certificate was examined from the side of the petitioner as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A8 series documents were marked. No evidence was adduced from the side of the respondents. 4. An amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was claimed as total compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,36,750/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the petition till realisation with proportionate costs. The 3[rd] respondent Insurance Company was directed to satisfy the award. The compensation awarded to the petitioner under various heads is as follows:- **==> picture [424 x 66] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** 1 2 3 4 5 Sl. Head of Claim Amount Amount Basics - vital No Claimed Awarded details in a nut **----- End of picture text -----** **M.A.C.A NO.1567 OF 2016** ## **4** **==> picture [424 x 682] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** shell 1 Loss of 60000 20000 5000×4 earning - - - 2 Partial loss of earning - 3 Transportation 2000 Reasonable to hospital and estimate made back 4 Damage to 1000 750 Awarded clothing 5 Extra 3000 2000 Reasonable nourishment 6 Medical A8 and A9 series expenses 200000 60000 Medical bills Future medical 20000 (42810 + expenses 41880-25000 = 59690) - 7 Expenses of a 3000 IP from 0-03- bystander 2012 to 23-03- 2012 8 Compensation 50000 25000 Reasonable for pain and estimate made suffering etc. 9 Compensation for continuing or permanent disability 100000 Compensation 84000 (5000×12×14 x for loss of 10/100) earning power and loss of 100000 amenities 10 Compensation - 20000 Reasonable **----- End of picture text -----** **M.A.C.A NO.1567 OF 2016** ## **5** for loss of estimate made amenities in life Total amount claimed restricted to Rs.5,00,000/Amount awarded is Rs.2,36,750/- with interest as shown in the relief portion. 5. According to the petitioner, though the Doctor (PW1) has assessed the percentage of disability as 16%, the Tribunal has taken only 10% disability in computing the compensation. Ext.A6 is the disability certificate. PW1 Doctor who issued Ext.A6 certificate has opined that the permanent physical disability sustained by the petitioner on account of the injuries sustained in the accident is 16%. However, the Tribunal held that Ext.A6 is not issued by a Medical Board and it cannot be accepted as such as the percentage of permanent disability assessed therein is found to be on the higher side. Accordingly, the Tribunal scaled down the percentage of disability to 10%. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, the Tribunal cannot scale down the percentage of disability assessed by a Doctor, particularly, when the Doctor was examined before the Tribunal. The learned **M.A.C.A NO.1567 OF 2016** **6** counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in **Raj Kumar** _**v**_ **. Ajay Kumar and another** [2011 (1)SCC 343] in support of his contention. In this case, the Doctor who issued Ext. A6 disability certificate was examined as PW1 before the Tribunal. If the Tribunal was not satisfied with the certificate issued by PW1, the Tribunal ought to have referred the petitioner to a Medical Board for assessment of the disability. Without referring the petitioner to a Medical Board, the Tribunal cannot discard Ext.A6 disability certificate issued by the Doctor who was examined before the Tribunal. The Tribunal ought to have taken the percentage of disability at 16% as certified in Ext.A6 for assessing compensation for permanent disability/loss of earning power, without mechanically pegging down the disability to 10%. Therefore, the percentage of disability has to be taken as 16% as certified by the Doctor in Ext.A6. Accordingly, the compensation for continuing or permanent disability/loss of earning power is re-fixed as Rs.1,34,400/- (5,000×12×14×16/100). Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get an enhanced **M.A.C.A NO.1567 OF 2016** **7** compensation of **Rs.50,400/-** (1,34,400 – 84,000) under the said head. 7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the amount awarded under the head compensation for pain and suffering is inadequate, I find that, an amount of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded under the said head, which seems to be just and reasonable compensation taking note of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident. 8. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards the compensation for loss of amenities in life. Going through the nature of injuries and the permanent disability sustained, I find that, an amount of **Rs.5,000/-** more can be awarded under the said head. Therefore, I re-fix the compensation under the head loss of amenities in life as Rs. 25,000/-. 9. The compensation awarded under other heads appears to be just and reasonable. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for an enhanced compensation of **Rs.55,400/-** (50,400 + 5,000) with 9% interest per **M.A.C.A NO.1567 OF 2016** **8** annum with proportionate costs. The 3[rd] respondent shall deposit the enhanced compensation awarded by this Court with interest and costs before the Tribunal, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appeal is allowed as above. ## **Sd/-** **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** SPR