Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeMACA stands allowed accordingly; appeal allowed...

Iype Abraham v. D. John; Royce C. Varghese General Administrator Manager, Beeliver’s Church India; The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 2870 OF 2014
Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Mary Joseph
Judgment Date
2022-10-19
Court Decision / Holding
MACA stands allowed; the appeal is allowed, with enhanced compensation computed by fixing monthly income at Rs. 7,500, applying the 17 multiplier (age 29) and incorporating additional heads of compensation (loss of earnings, extra nourishment, clothing, disability). The 3rd respondent is directed to deposit the already awarded amount and the additional Rs. 52,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the Original Petition, realized within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition
MACA stands allowed accordingly; appeal allowed with enhanced compensation and specific deposit directions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Iype Abraham

Respondents

  • D. John
  • Royce C. Varghese General Administrator Manager, Beeliver’s Church India
  • The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri K.A. Hashim
  • • Sri M.I. Ismail

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Dr. Elizabeth Varkey

Case Synopsis & Summary

This MACA arises from an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in OP(MV) 1587/2011 dated 15 May 2014, awarding Rs 2,52,000 as compensation to Iype Abraham for injuries sustained in a road accident on 30 November 2010 on the Kottayam–Kumaly road when an ambulance (KL 03/L-8763) allegedly knocked him down as he rode a motorcycle (KL-05/M-7766). The claimant, then 29 and employed as a Sales Manager at a Royal Enfield showroom in Kottayam, claimed Rs 5,32,000 (restricted to Rs 4,00,000) and argued for higher compensation. The 1st and 2nd respondents were ex parte; the 3rd respondent admitted insurance coverage but contended the rider’s own rash and negligent riding caused the accident. The Tribunal held the ambulance driver responsible for rash/negligent driving and awarded compensation, with monthly income notionally fixed at Rs 5,000. The appellant challenged the adequacy of income and other heads of compensation, pointing to Ext. A9 (employer certificate) showing Rs 12,000 monthly income and arguing the employer was not examined. Relying on Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram (2011) 13 SCC 236, the High Court increased the monthly income to Rs 7,500, applied a 17x multiplier for age 29, and, after accounting for a 5% disability certificate (Ext X1) and other heads (loss of earnings, extra nourishment, clothing, etc.), enhanced total compensation. The court directed additional Rs 52,000 with 7.5% interest and allowed the MACA accordingly.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in fixing the petitioner’s monthly income at Rs. 5,000. Ext. A9 shows the petitioner earned Rs. 12,000 per month as Sales Manager, but the employer was not examined to verify this. Citing Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram (2011) 13 SCC 236, the appellant argues for re-fixation of income (Rs. 7,500) and recalculation of damages. The claim for loss of earnings for the appropriate period, plus enhancements for extra nourishment, clothing, and disability (5% per Ext X1) should be taken into account, with the correct multiplier (17) for age 29. The appellant seeks enhancement of the overall compensation and a direction to deposit the amount swiftly, including interest.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents admit insurance coverage for the ambulance but contend the accident resulted from rash and negligent riding by the respondent-petitioner, not the ambulance driver. The insurer contributed to the defence; the 1st and 2nd respondents were ex parte. The Respondents argue that the Tribunal correctly found liability on the insurer’s client and that the compensation awarded was justified under the evidence. They request maintenance of the Tribunal’s decision and oppose any enhancement beyond the statutory framework.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.(2011) 13 SCC 236PositiveCourt relied on Ramachandrappa to fix and/or enhance the claimant's monthly income (Rs.7,500) and recalibrate 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 Iype Abraham v. D. John; Royce C. Varghese General Administrator Manager, Beeliver’s Church India; 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 MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 27TH ASWINA, 1944 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 2870 OF 2014`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 1587/2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOTTAYAM DATED 15.05.2014 ``` ## **`APPELLANT/PETITIONER:`** ``` IYPE ABRAHAM AGED 29 YEARS POTHANICKAL HOUSE, NEAR JANATH RUBBER FACTORY, OLD KK ROAD, MANARCADU KARA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS.SRI.K.A.HASHIM SRI.M.I.ISMAIL ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 D.JOHN 316-A, 59 PUTHUVAL HOUSE,VANDIPERIYAR, PEERUMEDU. PIN-685 531.` - `2 ROYCE C. VARGHESE GENERAL ADMINISTRATOR MANAGER, BEELIVER’S CHURCH INDIA, CHERUVALLY ESTATE ERUMELY.P.O., THIRUVALLLA, PIN-686 509.` - `3 THE ORIENTAL INSURACNE CO. LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KANJIRAPPALLY-686 507. BY ADV DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY` ## **`THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP`** ``` FOR HEARING ON 19.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` MACA No. 2870 of 2014 -:2:- ## JUDGMENT Dated this the 19[th] day of October, 2022 This appeal is filed challenging an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam (for short ‘Tribunal’) on 15.05.2014 in OP(MV) No.1587/2011. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to in accordance with their status in the Original Petition. 2. The case of the appellant was that an Ambulance bearing Registration No. KL 03/L-8763 knocked him down while he was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-05/M7766 at about 10 p.m. on 30.11.2010 through Kottayam-Kumaly road. He sustained serious injuries including comminuted intra articular fracture on distal end of left radius and longitudinal fracture of left petrous bone with internal cerebral bleed. He was admitted at Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, wherefrom, shifted to Amritha Hospital, Kochi and there he had underwent inpatient treatment from 01.12.2010 to 10.12.2010. Thereafter, MACA No. 2870 of 2014 -:3:- he continued his treatment as outpatient for a prolonged period. He was aged 29 years and was employed at the relevant time as Manager in Royal Enfield Bullet showroom, Kottayam. His monthly income was Rs.12,000/-. According to him, after the accident, due to the injuries and treatment, he suffered difficulties and loss of earnings considerably and is liable to be compensated by respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. Claiming a sum of Rs.5,32,000/- limited to Rs.4,00,000/-, the above Original Petition was filed by him before the Tribunal. 3. 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents did not turn up to contest despite receiving notice in the Original Petition and therefore were declared ex parte. The 3[rd] respondent has filed written statement admitting insurance coverage for the Ambulance bearing Registration No. KL 03/L-8763 under the policy issued by them and contended that the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the petitioner himself has caused the motor accident to occur. Oral evidence was not adduced on either side. Exts.A1 to A14 and Ext.X1 were marked on the side of the petitioner. On appreciation of the above documentary evidence, MACA No. 2870 of 2014 -:4:- the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the driver of the Ambulance was responsible for the accident by his rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal also arrived at affirmatively that the petitioner is entitled to get compensation from the respondents. Rs.2,52,000/- was arrived at as the sum payable as compensation and directed the 3[rd] respondent to pay the same with interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum from 15.12.2011, the date of filing of the Original Petition till the date of realization alongwith proportionate costs. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the factum that the monthly income was fixed by the Tribunal notionally as Rs.5,000/- and it is too low. Petitioner claimed to be a Sales Manager in Royal Enfield Bullet showroom at Kottayam and earns Rs.12,000/- per month. According to the learned counsel, a certificate issued by the employer was produced and marked in evidence as Ext.A9 wherein it was stated that the petitioner was working in the capacity and earns income as pleaded by him. True that the certificate was marked in evidence as Ext.A9, but, the petitioner MACA No. 2870 of 2014 -:5:- did not examine the employer who has issued the document. In the above circumstances that the Tribunal had made up it’s mind not to base the document for fixation of monthly income of the petitioner. 5. It is worthy to note from Ramachandrappa vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], that Apex Court had fixed the monthly income of a coolie worker who had been the victim of a motor accident occurred in the year 2004 as Rs.4,500/-. Rs.7500/- being a sum proportionate to that in the year of accident of 2010 in the case on hand, the same is fixed. When compensation is assessed on the basis of Rs.7,500/and for a period of 6 months taken as the period for which income was not earned by him, the compensation payable under the head loss of earning will come to Rs.45,000/-. Rs.20,000/being the sum stands awarded by the Tribunal, Rs.25,000/- will be payable as compensation additionally. Under the head, Extra Nourishment the amount stands awarded by the Tribunal being Rs.2,000/-, this Court is inclined to grant Rs.1,000/- more. Under the head damages to clothing, Rs.500/- being the sum stands MACA No. 2870 of 2014 -:6:- awarded as compensation, this Court is inclined to enhance it to Rs.1,000/- so that Rs.500/- will be payable additionally. Ext.X1, is a certificate marked in evidence by the petitioner and 5% is certified as his percentage of disability. The age of the petitioner being 29, the multiplier applicable is 17 and the Tribunal has taken it correctly. Compensation for disability when reassessed on the basis of monthly income modified as Rs.7,500/- and other factors adopted by the Tribunal, maintained, Rs.76,500/(7,500x5%x17x12) will be payable under that head. The sum stands awarded by the Tribunal being Rs.51,000/-, Rs.25,500/will be payable as additional compensation. 6. In the aforesaid manner of assessment, a total sum of Rs.52,000/- (Rupees fifty two thousand only) is payable additionally. The 3[rd] respondent shall deposit the compensation stands already awarded by the Tribunal by the impugned award (if not paid) and the sum arrived at now by this Court as the additional compensation payable, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the Original Petition MACA No. 2870 of 2014 -:7:- till the date of realization within a period of two months from the date on which a copy of this judgment is received by them. M.A.C.A stands allowed accordingly. Sd/MARY JOSEPH JUDGE ttb MACA No. 2870 of 2014 -:8:-