Ismail v. Nizaf and Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
B. Sudheendra Kumar
Judgment Date: 2017-11-22
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal disposed of in part. The High Court accepted Ext.A7 and enhanced compensation by recalculating notional income to Rs.9,000, applying a multiplier of 15 for a 40-year-old, resulting in Rs.2,10,600 as permanent disability, Rs.27,000 for loss of earnings, Rs.1,000 for clothing, and an additional Rs.500, totaling Rs.2,32,100 as additional compensation. Interest at 8% per annum is awarded from the date of petition until deposition. The insurer is directed to deposit the amount within two months from receipt of copy of the judgment, and the Tribunal is to release funds after deducting court fees.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of; enhanced compensation with directions for deposit and release by insurer

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ismail, s/o Kothalam, Panackal House, Vellimathotty Bhagom, Sastampapara Kara, Karikode Village, Thodupuzha Taluk, Idukki District

Respondents

Nizaf (deleted from the array of parties per order dated 11/11/2016 in IA.3833/16 in MACA 26/15)
Branch Manager Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Smti. Binitha James

Counsels for Respondents

• Smti. K.S. Santhi

Case Synopsis & Summary

Ismail, the appellant, sustained injuries in a road traffic accident on 2 May 2011 when his motorcycle was struck by another bike driven rashly and negligently. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.1,04,320 as compensation. On appeal, the appellant challenged the adequacy of the compensation and the evidentiary acceptance of Ext.A7, a Medical Board disability certificate recording 13% permanent disability. The Tribunal rejected Ext.A7 on the ground that no doctor signing Ext.A7 was examined. The appellant relied on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (SC) to contend that disability certificates issued by a Medical Board can be accepted even without examining the individual doctors if there is no reason to doubt their genuineness. The High Court accepted Ext.A7, found the reasoned disability to be 13%, and recalculated the appellant’s income and damages. Notional monthly income was fixed at Rs.9,000 (up from Rs.4,000); for a 40-year-old, a multiplier of 15 was applied. Permanent disability compensation was computed as Rs.2,10,600; loss of earnings was increased to Rs.27,000; Rs.1,000 for clothing damage and an additional Rs.500 were added. The total enhanced compensation amounts to Rs.2,32,100 with 8% interest from the petition date until deposit. The insurer is directed to deposit this amount within two months; the Tribunal will release the funds after deducting court fees. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Presumption of genuineness of disability certificates issued by a Medical Board (as per Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that Ext.A7 disability certificate showing 13% permanent disability should be accepted as valid evidence. Relying on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, the Medical Board certificate should be admissible without examining the doctors constituting the board; seeks enhancement of compensation by re-fixing notional income at Rs.9,000 and granting permanent disability, greater loss of earnings, clothing damages, and related interest.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that Ext.A7 certificate was not proved since none of the doctors signing it were examined; dispute the enhancement sought; insurer liable to deposit compensation; Tribunal’s findings should stand unless reversed.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar	2011(1) KLT 620 (SC)	Positive	Cited to justify acceptance of a Medical Board disability certificate without examination of the doctors if genuineness is not in doubt.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1939 MACA.No. 26 of 2015 () ----------------------OPMV 536/2011 of III ADDL.MACT, THODUPUZHA ## APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------- ISMAIL, S/O.KOTHALAM, PANACKAL HOUSE, VELLIMATHOTTY BHAGOM, SASTHAMPARA KARA,KARIKODE VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DIST ## BY ADV. SMT.BINITHA JAMES ## RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. NIZAF, S/O.NISAR, KARAKUNNEL HOUSE, ARPPAMATTOM BHAGOM,THONDIKUZHA KARA, KARIKODE VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DIST. **[DELETED] [RESPONDENT NO.1 IS DELETED FROM THE ARRAY OF PARTIES AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER** **ORDER DATED 11/11/2016 IN IA.3833/16 IN M.A.C.A.26/15.]** 2. BRANCH MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, FIRST FLOOR, VISHNU BUILDING, K P VALLON ROAD, KADAVANTHARA, COCHIN-682020 BY SMT.K.S.SANTHI THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **C.T.RAVIKUMAR & B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JJ.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A. No.26 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22[nd] day of November 2017 ## JUDGMENT ## **Sudheendrakumar J.,** The appellant sustained injuries in a road traffic accident which occurred on 2.5.2011 at 2 p.m. While the appellant was riding a motor cycle along the public road, another motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-38A-4835, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motor cycle ridden by the appellant and as a consequence, the appellant sustained injuries. He was immediately taken to the hospital and treated there as inpatient. M.A.C.A. No.26 of 2015 : 2 : 2. In connection with the injuries sustained, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,04,320/- as compensation. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the first respondent before the Tribunal. In the said circumstances, the Tribunal directed the respondent herein, being the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident, to deposit the compensation before the Tribunal. 5. The only challenge in this appeal is with regard to the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the M.A.C.A. No.26 of 2015 : 3 : Tribunal. The appellant sustained crush injury on his right foot. He also sustained 13% permanent disability as per Ext.A7 disability certificate, issued by a Medical Board. The Tribunal did not accept Ext.A7 certificate stating that none of the Doctors, who signed the certificate, had been examined to prove the certificate. The Apex Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [2011(1) KLT 620 (SC)] held that in the case of disability certificate issued by a Medical Board, if there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the certificate, the same can be accepted even without examining any of the Doctors constituting the Medical Board. In view of the above reason, the finding by the Tribunal that since none of the Doctors was examined to M.A.C.A. No.26 of 2015 : 4 : prove Ext.A7 certificate, Ext.A7 certificate cannot be accepted, cannot be sustained. We have gone through Ext.A7 certificate and we are satisfied that the Medical Board had assigned the reason in Ext.A7 for having assessed 13% as the permanent disability of the appellant. 6. The appellant claimed that he was a business man earning Rs.10,000/- per month. However, no document was produced to prove the same. In the said circumstances, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs.4,000/-. The appellant was aged 40 years during the relevant period. The accident was on 2.5.2011. In view of the above reasons, we fix the notional monthly income of the appellant as Rs.9,000/-. M.A.C.A. No.26 of 2015 : 5 : Since the appellant was aged 40 years, '15' has to be taken as the multiplier for the purpose of calculating the disability compensation. The Tribunal did not award any amount as compensation towards permanent disability sustained by the appellant. In view of the disability sustained by the appellant as per Ext.A7 certificate, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,10,600/(9000x12x15x13/100) as compensation towards permanent disability. The Tribunal awarded compensation for loss of earnings for three months. Since we have re-fixed the monthly income, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.27,000/- as compensation towards loss of earnings. Subtracting the amount of Rs.6,000/- awarded by the M.A.C.A. No.26 of 2015 : 6 : Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.21,000/- as additional compensation under the said count. Towards damage to clothings, we are granting an amount of Rs.1,000/- as compensation, as against the amount of Rs.500/- awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.500/- as additional compensation under the said count. Thus, the appellant is entitled to a total amount of Rs.2,32,100/(Rupees two lakh thirty two thousand one hundred only) as additional compensation. The above amount carries interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, except for the period of delay, which comes to 116 days. The respondent, M.A.C.A. No.26 of 2015 : 7 : being the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident, is directed to deposit the amount of compensation with interest before the Tribunal, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The tribunal is directed to release the amount to the appellant only after deducting the balance court fee. In the result, this appeal stands disposed of as above. Sd/- **C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE Sd/- B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE** _dl/22.11.2017_ _// True Copy //_ _PA to Judge_