JINTO PAUL C v. THE MANAGING PARTNER (R.C OWNER), SAKTHIMURUGAN TRANSPORTS; UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1944 ``` ## `MACA NO. 234 OF 2023` ``` [AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 23.02.2022 IN OP(MV)NO.1957 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD] ``` ## `APPELLANT/PETITIONER:` ``` JINTO PAUL C, S/O CHINNAPPAN.A, AGE 19 YEARS, MATHAKKARAR VEEDU, ATTAPALLAM, PAMPAMPALLAM POST, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678621. BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:` ``` 1THE MANAGING PARTNER (R.C OWNER), SAKTHIMURUGAN TRANSPORTS 9-1443C, VETTIKKAL MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 682652. 2P.UNNIKUMARAN, S/O PAZHANIMALA (DRIVER), AGED 54 YEARS, DOOR NO. 70, 62-1 ISAK STREET, RATHINA STREET RATHINAPURI, COIMBATORE TAMILNADU, PIN – 641027. ``` ``` 3UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PARK HOUSE ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA PIN 680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER (INSURER OF ASHOK LEYLAND BUS BEARING RG.NO.KLO-8 AZ 8595) POLICY NO.1006003116P113501991 VALID FROM 01.02.2017 TO 31.01.2018). ``` ## `BY ADV.SMT.S.JAYASREE, SC` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 234 OF 2023 ``` ``` -2- ``` ## `JUDGMENT` ``` The appellant was merely 17 years old, when he was involved in a road accident on 28.05.2017. While he was walking on the side of a road, the offending vehicle, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit him, and sustained serious injuries. He had to be hospitalized and treated for a long period of time; and he, therefore, filed OP(MV)No.1957/2017 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad (‘Tribunal’, for short), seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.3,75,000/-, limited to Rs.3,70,000/-, and which has been allowed to a sum of Rs.6,53,300/-. He, however, impugns this Award as being inadequate. ``` ``` 2.Sri.Johnson Varikkappallil – learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in reckoning the ``` ``` MACA NO. 234 OF 2023 ``` ``` -3- ``` ``` notional income of his client to be a mere Rs.11,500/-, though he was a bright student with great prospects in the future; and therefore, that same ought to have been reckoned at a much higher figure, along with future prospects as applicable. He then argued that, going by the nature of the injuries and the sufferings endured by the appellant, the compensation under the heads “Pain and Suffering” and “Loss of Amenities” ought to have been much higher than what has been granted. ``` ``` 3.Sri.Johnson Varikkappallil concluded his submissions saying that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head “Permanent Disability” is also in error, because it has reduced the percentile of disability suffered by his client to 20%, even though it has been unequivocally certified by the competent Medical Board to be 25%. He thus prayed that this Appeal ``` ``` MACA NO. 234 OF 2023 ``` ``` -4- ``` ``` be allowed. ``` ``` 4.In response, Smt.S.Jayasree – learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, argued that the computations adopted by the Tribunal are without error and that the ``` ``` appellant has been sufficiently compensated. She thus prayed that this Appeal be dismissed. ``` ``` 5.I have considered the afore rival ``` ``` submissions, on the touchstone of the evidence on record, which I have analyzed very carefully. ``` ``` 6.I first deal with the notional income ``` ``` adopted by the Tribunal. I notice that it has ``` ``` taken the figure of Rs.11,500/- in this regard but has not granted any future prospects to the ``` ``` same. Going by the judgment of the Hon’ble ``` ``` Supreme Court inRamachandrappa v. Manager, ``` ``` Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. ``` ``` [(2011) 13 SCC 236], even in the case of a ``` ``` person with unascertainable income or a person ``` ``` MACA NO. 234 OF 2023 ``` ``` -5- ``` ``` who is engaged as a ‘Coolie’, the figure for notional income to be adopted in the year 2017 – when the accident occurred – is Rs.11,000/-. The ``` ``` learned Tribunal has adopted Rs.11,500/- as the notional income of the appellant, presumably because he was a student. I cannot find this to be in error, though am certain that 10% future prospects should be added to it, taking into account that he has suffered a permanent disability of 20% or more. ``` ``` 7.Coming to the disability suffered by the ``` ``` appellant, Ext.C1 – a Medical Report, issued by a validly constituted Medical Board, would show that he sustained 25% disability. Even though ``` ``` the Tribunal has the competence to reduce the percentile mentioned therein, it could only have been done for cogent and reliable reasons. However, going by the impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has merely said that it is of ``` ``` MACA NO. 234 OF 2023 ``` **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` the view that the “functional disability of the petitioner can be taken as 20%.” (sic) I cannot find this to be tenable and am certainly of the ``` ``` view that, when Ext.C1 remains unimpeached and thecompetenceoftheMedicalBoard ``` ``` uncontested, the percentile of disability mentioned therein must be retained. ``` ``` 8.Moving on to the medical evidence on ``` ``` record, particularly Exts.A3 – Wound Certificate and Ext.A7 – Discharge Summary, they record that appellant had suffered “bifronal contusion, diffuse subarachnoid haemorrhage and left temporal acute subdural haematoma, diffuse axonal injury.” (sic) It is also uncontested ``` ``` that appellant was treated as an inpatient for 16 days and had to continue further treatment for a long period of time. Taking note of this, I have no doubt that the compensation under the heads “Pain and Suffering” and “Loss of ``` ``` MACA NO. 234 OF 2023 ``` ``` -7- ``` ``` Amenities” ought to have been granted by the Tribunal, at least to the extent claimed for, ``` ``` namely Rs.50,000/- and 30,000/- respectively. ``` ``` 9.That being said, I cannot find other ``` ``` findings of the Tribunal to be in error and ``` ``` hence confirm them all. ``` ``` Resultantly, this Appeal is partly allowed ``` ``` in the following manner: ``` ``` (a)Thecompensationforpermanent ``` ``` disability is enhanced to Rs.6,83,100/- (Rupees ``` ``` six lakhs eighty three thousand one hundred ``` ``` only), reckoning thenotional income of the ``` ``` appellant to be Rs.11,500/-, with 10% future ``` ``` prospects added to it and his percentile of ``` ``` disability being revised as ‘25’ as per Ext.C1. ``` **==> picture [377 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** ``` and Suffering” is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- ``` ``` (Rupees fifty thousand only), from Rs.25,000/- now granted by the Tribunal. ``` ``` MACA NO. 234 OF 2023 ``` ``` -8- ``` ``` (c)The compensation under the head “Loss of ``` ``` Amenities” is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand only), from Rs.20,000/- now ``` ``` granted by the Tribunal. ``` ``` (d)In all other heads, the compensation ``` ``` granted by the Tribunal will remain intact. ``` ``` Needless to say, theappellant will be at ``` ``` full liberty to recover the compensation, as enhanced by this Court, from the Insurance Company, along with interest at the rate of 7% ``` ``` (modifying the rate of interest of 7.5% granted ``` ``` by the Tribunal, in view of the escalation ``` ``` granted by this Court), from the date of claim ``` ``` until it is recovered. He will also be entitled ``` ``` to proportionate costs on the enhanced amount as ordered by the Tribunal. ``` ``` In view of the afore, the amount as fixed ``` ``` above shall be deposited by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal, within a period of ``` ``` MACA NO. 234 OF 2023 ``` **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` two months from the date of receipt of a copy this judgment. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE ``` ``` akv ```