Krishnachandra Kurup v. The Managing Director, KSRTC, Thiruvananthapuram

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: R. Basant
M. C. Hari Rani
Judgment Date: 2011-08-31
Court Decision / Holding: In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs. 1,38,700 in addition to the Tribunal’s award. The entire compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as directed by the Tribunal. All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld.
Final Disposition: Partly allowed; enhanced compensation by Rs. 1,38,700; total compensation approximately Rs. 4,93,800, with interest per Tribunal's directions and other directions of the Tribunal upheld.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Krishnachandra Kurup V, S/O Vijayaraghavan Kurup, NIRMALAYAM, THIRUMULLAVARAM, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM

Respondents

The Managing Director, KSRTC, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Siju K. (Advocate)
• A. Muhammed Raffi (Advocate)

Counsels for Respondents

• V. V. Nandagopal Nambiar, SC, KSRTC
• Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, SC, KSRTC

Case Synopsis & Summary

Krishnachandra Kurup v. The Managing Director, KSRTC, arises from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Kollam) award. The claimant, a young manager employed by a tyre dealer, sustained severe injuries in a motor accident on 7 April 2003, including a trochanteric fracture, elbow dislocation with nerve injury, multiple rib fractures with bilateral pneumothorax, and an intracranial head injury. He remained an inpatient for 82 days and claimed compensation for loss of earnings, medical expenses, transport, nourishment, clothing, bystander expenses, pain and suffering, and permanent disability. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,55,100, fixing the monthly income for compensation of the earning capacity at Rs. 2,000 and using a certain 17-multiplier, despite a salary certificate showing a gross income of Rs. 7,500. On appeal, the High Court held the monthly income ought to be Rs. 3,500, recognized a whole-body disability of 25% (combining 26% orthopedic and 27% neurological), and adopted the multiplier of 18 in line with Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation. It determined additional compensation of Rs. 1,38,700 for loss of earnings, nourishment, bystander expenses, and amenities. The appeal was allowed in part, directing payment of the enhanced amount, with interest as per the Tribunal’s directions and the Tribunal’s other directions upheld.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 – multiplier doctrine

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant submits that the MACT erred in computing actual income, using Rs. 2,500 as the income for loss of earnings while applying Rs. 2,000 for earning-capacity, and undercompensated for nourishment and bystander expenses; the tribunal also erred in applying a multiplier of 17 rather than 18. He asserts the monthly income should be Rs. 3,500 and that the 25% whole-body disability was not adequately compensated, including loss of amenities. He argues the evidence warrants enhancement in multiple heads, including loss of amenities and future prospects.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ arguments are not elaborated in the extract; their counsel is recorded as opposing the appellant’s contentions and supporting the Tribunal’s award, seeking to sustain the award with no substantial alteration.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	(2009) 6 SCC 121	Positive	The court adopts the multiplier rule from Sarla Verma (18 as multiplier) for the calculation of loss of earning capacity, aligning with the doctrine.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2011 / 9TH BHADRA 1933 MACA.No. 151 of 2010 ---------------------OPMV.2015/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER ------------------------ KRISHNACHANDRA KURUP.V, S/O.VIJAYARAGHAVAN KURUP, NIRMALAYAM, THIRUMULLAVARAM, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUDHAKARAN.P,S/O.PARAMESWARAN, KALKULANGARA VADAKKATHIL, VALAMKONAM, PERUMPUZHA PO, KOLLAM.(DELETD) R2 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY VIDE ORDER DATD 18/8/2011 IN I.A. 2290/11 IN MACA 151/2010. ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC FOR R1 SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ==============================** ## **M.A.C.A. NO. 151 OF 2010 ============================** ## **Dated this the 31[st] day of August 2011** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **R.Basant, J.** The claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 7/4/2003. He had suffered multiple grievous injuries. The injuries included Trochanteric fracture of shaft of right femur, fracture dislocation of right elbow, ulnar nerve injury of right upper limb at the level of elbow, fracture of 10[th] and 11[th] ribs with bilateral pneumothorax and intracranial head injury. He was an inpatient for a total period of 82 days. He claimed to be employed as Manager in a private establishment which was then franchisee of MRF tyres. He produced a salary certificate to show that the basic salary of Rs.4,000/- and inclusive of allowances, his gross salary was Rs.7500/-. According to him, he had suffered permanent disability as a result of the accident. He produced two certificates to show MACA 151/2010 2 that he has neurological disability of 27% and orthopedic disability of 26%. He examined only himself as a witness. No Doctor was examined. The appellant/claimant was not referred to any Medical Board. 2. The Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for a total amount of Rs.3,55,100/- as compensation as per the details given in paragraph 8 which we extract below: |**_Sl.No._**|**_Head of the claim_**|**_Amount awarded_**| |---|---|---| |1|Loss of earning for 6 months|Rs.1.5,000/-(6x2500)| ||Partial loss of earning|Nil| |3|Transport to hospital|Rs.5,000/-| |4|Extra nourishment|Rs.2,000/-| |5|Damage to clothing and Articles|Rs. 500/-| |6|Others – bystander expenses|Rs.5,000/-| |7|Medical expenses|Rs.2,25,910/-| |8|Compensation for pain and suffering|Rs. 20,000/-| |9|Compensation for continuing permanent disability(2000x12x17x20/100)|Rs. 81,600/-| ||Total|Rs.3,55,010/- rounded as Rs.3,55,100/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty five thousand and one hundred only)| MACA 151/2010 3 3. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and respondents/owner/driver have advanced their arguments. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on the short ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is not adequate. 4. Called upon to explain and be specific, learned counsel for the appellant, first of all contends that the monthly income was reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.2500/- per mensem in a grossly perverse manner. However, while awarding the compensation for reduction in earning capacity, the Tribunal reckoned only 2000/- as the monthly income. For extra nourishment and bystander’s expenses, no proper amount of compensation has been awarded. The extent of reduction in earning capacity was reckoned by the Tribunal at 20% in a most unsatisfactory manner. It is further argued that the multiplier was wrongly taken by the Tribunal as 17 and not as 18. It is then contended that though the Tribunal came to the conclusion that physical disability and consequent reduction in earning capacity were suffered by the appellant, no amount of MACA 151/2010 4 compensation whatsoever was awarded under the head of loss of amenities. In these circumstances, the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal under these heads deserves to be enhanced, contends the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. The appellant is shown to be a young man aged 22 years. He is well qualified. He held a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. He was employed as a Manager by a private tyre dealer. The salary certificate shows that his monthly income was Rs.7500/-. The Tribunal reckoned the same only at Rs.2500/- for the purpose of ascertaining the actual loss of earnings. However, while reckoning the monthly income for the purpose of reduction in earning capacity, the Tribunal took only Rs.2000/- as the monthly income. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that the monthly income has not been correctly taken. 6. Taking all the relevant circumstances into account, we are satisfied that the monthly income can be reckoned at Rs.3500/- per mensem. Even in the absence of better evidence or mere authentic data, we are persuaded to accept that as the monthly income considering the age and the qualifications of MACA 151/2010 5 the appellant. 7. Coming to the extent of physical disability and the consequent reduction in earning capacity, we have two certificates, Exts.A14 and A15 issued by experts of the specialties of Orthopedics and Neurology. Together according to these certificates, the appellant has suffered 53% - 26% orthopedic disability and 27% neurological disability. The total reduction in earning capacity on whole body basis was not assessed with the help of inter disciplinary experts. The appellant, it appears, did not take any steps to get the whole body disability assessed competently by getting himself examined by an expert Medical Board. We have taken note of the nature of injuries described in the two disability certificates – Exts.A14 and A15. Taking all the relevant circumstances into account, we are satisfied that 25% can be reckoned as the physical disability and the consequent reduction in earning capacity. The appellant/claimant was aged 22 years and we agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that 18 must be reckoned as the multiplier under the dictum in **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport corporation [(2009) 6 S.C.C. 121].** MACA 151/2010 6 8. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that the physical disability suffered must have invited two specific consequences – reduction in earning capacity and impairment in the quality of life. For reduction in earning capacity, compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal whereas for loss of amenities, no amount has been awarded as compensation by the Tribunal. 9. The appellant was an inpatient for a period exceeding 82 days. The Tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.5,000/for by-stander’s expenses and Rs.2000/- for extra nourishment. We are satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that the said amounts deserve to be enhanced. 10. On the basis of the above discussions, we come to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for the following further amount as compensation in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. |1|Loss of earning|Rs.6000/- (3500x6=21000 minus 15000)| |---|---|---| |2|Extra nourishment & bystander’s expenses at the rate of 150/- per day for 82 days hospitalisation|5,300/- (150x82=12300 minus 7000)| MACA 151/2010 7 |3|Compensation for reduction in earning capacity||Rs.1,07,400/- (3500x12x18x25/100= 1,89000 minus 81600)| |---|---|---|---| |4|Compensation for loss of amenities **Total**||Rs.20,000/-(no amount awarded by the Tribunal ) **Rs.1,38,700/-** ============| ## 11. In the result a)this appeal is allowed in part. b)The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.1,38,700/-(Rupees one lakh thirty eight thousand and seven hundred only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. c)We direct that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as directed by the Tribunal. d)All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. Sd/- ## **R.BASANT, JUDGE** **Sd/M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE** ks. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE