High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-10-25Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation; Tribunal...

Kuruvilla v. Sajeev & National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA No.803 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Basant Balaji, J.
Judgment Date: 2022-10-25
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation of Rs.28,000; interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till 03.03.2009 and thereafter from 08.10.2009 until realisation; claim petition restored with set-off for any amounts already paid; insurer to recover compensation paid from the owner of the vehicle; NEFT/RTGS transfer within one month; no interest on the enhanced amount for the period 03.03.2009 to 08.10.2009; Tribunal's other findings confirmed.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation; Tribunal's findings stand.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Kuruvilla

Respondents

Sajeev
National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. P. P. Biju

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. P. K. Santhamma

Case Synopsis & Summary

Kuruvilla, the appellant/claimant in OP(MV) No.2087/2006 before the MACT, Perumbavoor, sustained serious injuries in a motor-vehicle accident on 14.04.2006 on the Aluva–Munnar road near Iringole when his motorcycle KL-17/B-5785 was struck from the east by the motorcycle KL-17/D-4924 driven rashly by the 1st respondent. He was treated as an inpatient at Medical Trust Hospital and other facilities, with radiological evidence of head injuries and post‑traumatic seizures. The offending vehicle was owned by the 1st respondent and insured by the 2nd respondent; both were held liable by the Tribunal. The 1st respondent appeared ex parte; the 2nd respondent admitted coverage but argued license violations and that policy conditions prohibited indemnification, contending no liability. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,37,621 with interest at 8% from the date of application till 03.03.2009 and from 08.10.2009 onward to realisation. On appeal, the appellant claimed that the monthly income was undervalued at Rs.3,000 and relied on Ramachandrappa to contend a higher minimum income, while producing medical records suggesting long recovery. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, increasing loss of earnings to Rs.30,000 and pain and suffering to Rs.30,000, for a total enhanced award of Rs.60,000, while keeping other findings intact. It directed NEFT/RTGS transfer, set‑offs for prior payments, and an insurer recourse against the owner; it also refused interest on the enhanced amount during a prior retention period.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Section 3(1) r/w 181 of the MV Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Appellant contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal undervalues his loss. He asserts his monthly income should be Rs.5,000 (citing Ramachandrappa for a higher floor, Rs.5,500, as minimum for a coolie-like work), and that the Tribunal erred by adopting Rs.3,000 per month. He produced medical records (Ext.A8–A12) showing inpatient treatment, head injuries, and post‑traumatic seizures, which justify a longer period of rest and greater economic loss. He argues that loss of earnings should be computed for six months of rest rather than four, and that the head of damages for pain and suffering should reflect the severity of the injuries. The appeal seeks enhancement of two heads: loss of earnings from Rs.12,000 to Rs.30,000 and pain and suffering from Rs.20,000 to Rs.30,000, resulting in an enhanced total of Rs.60,000. He also requests that the amount already paid be set off and that the insurer be made responsible only after adjusting for set-offs, with NEFT/RTGS transfer and related interest calculations, and the insurer's recourse against the owner.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend that the insurance policy covered the vehicle and that the 1st respondent drove without a valid license; therefore, the insurer's liability is excluded under policy conditions. The 2nd respondent admits coverage but argues policy violations nullify liability to indemnify and that the claim is exorbitant and not supported by evidence. The respondents submit that the Tribunal correctly assessed the evidence and that there is no basis to enhance the compensation beyond the statutory framework. They submit that the license violation and the policy requirement are fatal to the claim, and that the amount of Rs.1,37,621 already awarded should be sustained or adjusted only to the extent of proper evidence. They oppose the higher quantum of loss of earnings and pain and suffering and request that the appellate court uphold the original award or reduce it appropriately, and that interest and set-off provisions be applied according to law.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Distinguished	The High Court invoked Ramachandrappa to discuss minimum monthly income but did not apply its principle; instead, it fixed Rs.5,000 as the monthly income for loss of earnings, effectively distinguishing the cited case.

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 Kuruvilla v. Sajeev & National 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 TUESDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022/ 3RD KARTHIKA, 1944 ``` ## **`MACA NO.803 OF 2013`** ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 29.12.2011 IN OP(MV) NO.2087/2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,PERUMBAVOOR ``` ## **`APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:`** ``` KURUVILLA AGED 63 YEARS,S/O.JOHN, ILLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, RAYAMANGALAM KARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT ``` ``` BY ADV.SRI.P.P.BIJU, ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1SAJEEV, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.THANGAPPAN, CHATHUKKALA HOUSE, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, KOOVAPPADY KARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 544. ``` ``` 2NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. PERUMBAVOOR BRANCH, PERUMBAVOOR P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -683 542. ``` ``` BY ADV SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` M.A.C.A No. 803 OF 2013 2 ## **BASANT BALAJI, J. =========================== M.A.C.A. No. 803 of 2013 ============================ Dated this the 25[th] day of October, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** The claimant in O.P.(M.V.) No.2087/2006 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor is the appellant. 2. The case of the appellant is that on 14.04.2006 at about 7 p.m. while the appellant was riding Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-17/B-5785 through Aluva-Munnar road at Iringole and when he reached near Rotary Club the offending motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-17/D-4924 driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner from eastern side and hit against the motor cycle on which the appellant was riding and he fell down and sustained injuries. He was taken to Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Perumbavoor and referred to Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam where he was treated as inpatient. The offending motor cycle owned by the 1[st] respondent and insured with the 2[nd] respondent. Hence they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. M.A.C.A No. 803 OF 2013 3 3. The 1[st] respondent remained exparte. The 2[nd] respondent filed written statement admitting the insurance coverage of the motor cycle KL-17/D-4924 as on the date of the accident. It was contended that the 1[st] respondent was riding the motor cycle without holding a valid and effective driving licence and the police has filed charge sheet for offences under Section 3(1) r/w.181 of the M.V.Act. Since the policy conditions are violated, the 2[nd] respondent has no liability to indemnify the 1[st] respondent. It was also contended that the claim is exorbitant and without any legal basis. Hence prayed for dismissal of the petition. On appreciation of the facts and and circumstances of the case and relying on Ext.A1 to A13 and Ext.B1, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,37,621/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of application till 03.03.2009 and thereafter from 08.10.2009 till realisation from respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded on various head this appeal is filed by the appellant. 4. The main contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was a business man earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal has taken monthly M.A.C.A No. 803 OF 2013 4 income as Rs.3000/- without any basis. Going by the decision reported in **Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236]** a Coolie worker who met with an accident in the year 2006, the minimum amount to be taken as monthly income is Rs.5500/-. In this case, the appellants claim is only Rs.5000/- per month. Hence, I am taking the monthly income as Rs.5000/- for calculating loss of earnings. Ext.A8 discharge certificate issued by the Medical Trust Hosptial, Ernakulam would show that the appellant was treated as inpatient for the period from 15.04.2006 to 29.04.2006 and he was advised to take rest for six months from 29.04.2006. Ext.A9 scan report dated 14.04.2006 suggests that he has got hemorrhagic contusions right high parietal region, then EDH right temperoparietal region, depressed fracture right parieto-temporal region extending inferiorly to the temporal floor of middle cranial fossa. Ext.A10 is the repeat CT taken on 15.04.2006, and it showed large subdural haemorrhage. Ext.A11 is a certificate dated 5.5.2011 issued from St.Joseph’s Hospital, Kothamangalam. From Ext.A11 it is understood that the petitioner has got post traumatic seizures and he is an M.A.C.A No. 803 OF 2013 5 antiepileptic which needs to be continued till July, 2013. Ext.A12 is the discharge card issued from St.Joseph’s Hospital, Kothamangalam for his inpatient treatment in that hospital for the period from 23.01.2011 to 26.01.2011. Thus, it can be seen that the appellant has to take rest atleast for six months due to the accident. The Tribunal has taken monthly income of Rs.3000/- and calculated loss of earning for 4 months. Since the doctor has suggested to take rest for six months, I am inclined to take loss of earning for six months@ Rs.5,000/come to Rs.30,000/- (Rs.5000x6) less what is awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Going by the injuries suffered, it is seen that suffering for some months, though the appellant has claimed Rs.50,000/-for loss of pain and suffering the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- taking note of the head injury and inpatient for 15 days. From Ext.A8, it can be seen that he was treated as inpatient at the Medical Trust Hospital and has to undergo repeat CT. Also Ext.A11 shows that he has got post traumatic seizures. Hence, the compensation for pain and suffering is enhanced by another amount of Rs.10,000/- M.A.C.A No. 803 OF 2013 6 6. Accordingly, the following enhancements are made to the award made by the Tribunal: |Sl.<br>No.|Head of Claim|Amt. Awarded<br>by Tribunal<br>(Rs.)|Amt. Enhanced<br>in appeal (Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1.|Loss of earning|12,000|30,000| |2.|Pain and sufering|20,000|30,000| ||Total|**32,000**|**60,000**| ||Amount enhanced –60,000 – 32,000 =**28,000/**-||| In the result, appeal is allowed and the appellant/claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.28,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till 03.3.2009 and thereafter from 08.10.2009 till realisation. The claim petition was earlier dismissed for default on 03.03.2009 and as per order in I.A.No.1907/2009, the claim petition was restored on 08.10.2009 on condition that the petitioner is not entitled to get interest for the period from 03.03.2009 to 08.10.2009. Hence, the appellant is not entitled to get interest for the enhanced compensation amount for the period from 03.03.2009 to 08.10.2009. All other findings entered by the Tribunal stand confirmed. M.A.C.A No. 803 OF 2013 7 If any amounts have already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. The claimants shall produce the details of the Bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and amount shall be transferred to the Bank account directly through NEFT/RTGS mode, within a period of one month thereafter. If the Bank account is not furnished within the time stipulated, it is made clear that no interest shall run on the enhanced amount after the period stipulated by this Court. The insurance company shall recover the compensation paid from the owner of the vehicle as found by the Tribunal. **Sd/BASANT BALAJI JUDGE** nk M.A.C.A No. 803 OF 2013 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF MACA NO.803 OF 2013`** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** ``` ANNEXURE -ITRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 18.04.2013 ISSUED BY ST.JOSEPH’S HOSPITAL, KOTHAMANGALAM ```