High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-06-03Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded

Joby Andrews v. Dr. Mathew Abraham and Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 2037 OF 2018

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Basant Balaji, J.
Judgment Date: 2022-06-03
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed. The appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,75,076 (Rupees two lakh seventy five thousand and seventy six only) with 8% interest from the date of award till realisation.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Joby Andrews

Respondents

Dr. Mathew Abraham
Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
• SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
• SRI.ARJUN SATHISH KUMAR
• SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE

Counsels for Respondents

• ADV. AKHIL K. MADHAV
• ADV. THOMAS M JACOB -R2

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court heard MACA No. 2037 of 2018 challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam's award in O.P. (M.V.) No. 1588 of 2014. On 11 June 2014, while riding his motorcycle, the appellant Joby Andrews turned right to enter Kurumbanadam public road and was struck by a car driven by the first respondent at excessive speed. He sustained grievous injuries, including a fracture shaft of the left femur, fracture to the proximal phalanx of the left great toe, a degloving injury to the left lower leg and foot, and deformity of the left thigh. He was treated at Medical College Hospital, Kottayam; later admitted to Medical Trust Hospital, Kochi, with multiple hospitalizations in 2014. The appellant, who ran a building materials business and possessed a Draftsman-Civil qualification, claimed a monthly income of Rs.15,000. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,42,250 with 9% interest. The appellant challenged the Tribunal’s fixed notional income of Rs.12,000, arguing that his qualifications and work history warranted Rs.15,000. The insurer contended that income was not proved and relied on a Ramachandrappa principle to justify Rs.12,000. The High Court found evidence supporting the appellant’s higher earning potential and faulted reliance on the Ramachandrappa notional income. The court recalculated compensation, increasing heads for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and disability, and determined the enhanced amount as Rs.2,75,076 to be paid with 8% interest from the date of award until realization. The decision remits the appellant’s appeal with a higher award, overturning portions of the Tribunal’s calculation.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income principle for determining compensation (as discussed in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 (13) SCC 236)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant argues that his actual income was Rs.15,000 per month, supported by his qualifications as a Draftsman-Civil and a nurse, and that the Tribunal erred in accepting a notional income of Rs.12,000. He contends the evidence demonstrates earning capacity beyond the Tribunal’s figure, and thus the compensation should be recalculated accordingly. He challenges the Tribunal’s calculation heads and seeks appropriate enhancement for loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and disability, considering the serious injuries sustained (including left femur fracture and other injuries) and the ongoing impact on earning capacity.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents, through their counsel, contend that in the absence of proof of actual income, the Tribunal’s notional income of Rs.12,000 is justified, citing the law laid down in Ramachandappa. They argue the matter concerns assessment of income in a case where the claimant’s earnings are not adequately established and defend the Tribunal’s approach, while denying liability or contesting the quantum heads beyond the award. They maintain the insurer’s responsibility and the validity of the counter-claim against the appellant.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	2011 (13) SCC 236	Distinguished	Court did not apply the Ramachandrappa principle to fix a lower notional income in this case; evidence of qualifications and earning capacity supported a higher income.

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 Joby Andrews v. Dr. Mathew Abraham and Future Generali 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 BASANT BALAJI`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1944 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 2037 OF 2018`** ## **`OPMV 1588/2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOTTAYAM`** ## **`APPELLANT/S:`** ``` JOBY ANDREWS, S/O.E.M.ANTHRAYOSE, IDATHARA MOOLAYIL, NALUNAKKAL P.O., VAKATHANAM, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM SRI.ARJUN SATHISH KUMAR SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1DR.MATHEW ABRAHAM, PATHIYAPALLIL, NJALIYAKUZHY BHAGOM, VAKATHANAM P.O., CHANGANACHERRY - 686538. 2FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., IV/278B, VETTEL ESTATE, KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM – 686004. *.The cause title is amended by correcting the status of the insurer as the 2[nd] respondent instead of the 3[rd] respondent as per order dated 11.10.19 in Ia 1/18 in MACA 2037/2018. ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` ADV. AKHIL K. MADHAV ADV.THOMAS M JACOB -R2 ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 2037 OF 2018 ``` -2- ## **JUDGMENT** (Dated this the 3[rd] day of June 2022) Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded in O.P. (M.V.) No.1588 of 2014 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, the petitioner has filed this appeal. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: On 11.6.2014 at about 17.30 hrs., while the appellant was riding his motor cyle bearing reg.No.33/A-1841 through Thengana – Njaliyakuzhy road from south to north direction, he gave signal to turn towards right to enter into Kurumbanadam public road and while turning towards right, he was hit by a car. The car was driven by the first respondent in excessive speed. The appellant sustained grievous injuries and was immediately taken to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam and thereafter, to Matha ``` MACA NO. 2037 OF 2018 ``` -3- Hospital, Thellakom. He was admitted in Medical Trust Hospital, Kochi as inpatient from 13.6.2014 to 14.7.2014. He was again admitted on 28.7.2014 for further treatment and was discharged on 4.8.2014. 3. The appellant was conducting a business in the name of St. George Agencies providing building materials and was earning a monthly income of Rs.15,000/- at the time of accident. He had also obtained Trade Certificate in the trade Draftsman-Civil and had work experience for six years under Chartered Engineer and approved valuer. He is also a qualified Nurse and midwife. The disability assessed by the Medical Board was 31.27%. The appellant claimed a compensation of Rs.30,58,000/-. 4. The first respondent entered appearance and filed a written statement contending that the petition is not maintainable. The amount claimed is highly excessive. He ``` MACA NO. 2037 OF 2018 ``` -4- has denied the fact that he was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner. 5. The 2[nd] respondent filed a written statement contending that the amount claimed is highly excessive and admitted that the vehicle was insured with the respondent at the time of the accident. 6. The Tribunal, relying on Exts.A1 to A21 and Exts.B1 to B2 and X1, awarded a compensation of Rs.15,42,250/- with 9% interest. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed. 7. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was earning an income of Rs.15,000/- per month. But the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the appellant at Rs.12,000/- per month only. The appellant is a qualified Draftsman and also a qualified Nurse. Hence, the Tribunal was not justified in reducing the monthly income from ``` MACA NO. 2037 OF 2018 ``` -5- Rs.15,000/- to Rs.12,000/-. 8. The counsel for the Insurance Company/2nd respondent submitted that when there is no proof to the income of the appellant, the Tribunal was justified in taking the notional income of the appellant as Rs.12,000/-, relying on the decision in **v.** reported **Ramachandrappa Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [2011 (13) SCC 236].** The counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation ought to have increased on various heads taking into consideration the income as Rs.15,000/-. ## 9. Heard. 10. There is evidence to show that the appellant is a qualified Draftsman and qualified Nurse and also he had undergone short terms courses evidenced from Exts.A1 series and started business in the year 2006 evidenced from ``` MACA NO. 2037 OF 2018 ``` -6- Ext.A18 to A19 documents. When there is evidence before the court that he was a qualified Draftsman and a qualified nurse, the notional income ought not have been taken by the Tribunal as Rs.12,000/-. The appellant has claimed only Rs.15,000/- as his monthly income and in that case, the Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly income as Rs.15,000/- per month. Taking the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.15,000/- the compensation for loss of earning can be re-worked as Rs.15,000 x 10 = Rs.1,50,000/-. Deducting the compensation awarded, the appellant is entitled to the balance amount of Rs.30,000/(1,50,000 – 1,20,000) under the head. 11. Towards compensation for pain and suffering, the appellant claimed Rs.3,00,000/-. The appellant sustained injuries such as fracture shaft of left femur, fracture proximal phalanx of left great toe with extrinsic wound left ``` MACA NO. 2037 OF 2018 ``` leg and left foot, degloving injury left lower leg and foot and deformity left thigh. Hence, I am inclined to enhance the compensation under the head compensation for pain and suffering from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- . The difference will be, 1,00,000 – 60,000 = Rs.40,000/- towards the same. 12. Taking into consideration of the injuries sustained by the appellant, I am inclined to enhance the compensation towards loss of amenities as Rs.75,000/- from Rs.50,000/-. The appellant would be entitled to the balance amount of Rs.25,000/- under the head. 13. The Tribunal, taking the monthly income as Rs.12,000/-, has granted Rs.7,20,500/- Towards loss of permanent disability. When the income is taken as Rs.15,000/-, the compensation for loss of permanent disability would be worked as 15,000 x 12 x 31.27 x ``` MACA NO. 2037 OF 2018 ``` -8- 16/100 = Rs.9,00,576/-, less the amount awarded by the Tribunal - 9,00,576 - 720500 = Rs.1,80,076/-. Thus the total enhanced compensation would be 180076 + 25000 + 40000+ 30000 = Rs.2,75,076/-. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,75,076/(Rupees two lakh seventy five thousand and seventy six only) with 8% interest from the date of award till realisation. sd **BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE** _dl/_