K.V. RAVEENDRAN v E. AMSA, K.K. SAIDALAVI & United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: R.BASANT
M.C.HARI RANI
Judgment Date: 2011-08-17
Court Decision / Holding: This appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is awarded a further Rs.16,040 in addition to the Tribunal’s award, with the entire amount carrying interest as directed by the Tribunal; all other directions of the Tribunal are upheld.
Final Disposition: Partly allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.V.RAVEENDRAN

Respondents

E.AMSA
K.K.SAIDALAVI
M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.A.R.GEORGE

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Motor Accident Claims Appeal arises from a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the quantum awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant for injuries sustained in a road accident on 06 November 1994. The claimant, K. V. Raveendran, suffered a fracture of the lower one-third of the right forearm, required 14 days of hospitalization, and was left with a 7% permanent disability. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 45,800, apportioned as Rs. 16,800 for disability, Rs. 17,000 for pain and suffering, Rs. 8,000 for loss of amenities, and Rs. 4,000 for other heads. The appellant argues the monthly income was undervalued at Rs. 1,250, asserting he earned about Rs. 3,000 per month as an electrician. He contends the Tribunal erred in not awarding any separate amount for loss of earnings, particularly given involuntary unemployment during treatment and convalescence. The insurer’s counsel points to the appellant’s age as 46 in 1995, suggesting the multiplier used by the Tribunal (16) was inappropriate and should be 13 in line with Sarla Verma v. D.T.C. The court accepts 7% disability but agrees that loss of earnings and, to an extent, loss of amenities require adjustment. Relying on Sarla Verma, it fixes the appropriate multiplier at 13 and awards a further Rs. 16,040, bringing the total to reflect a fairer compensation, while keeping other tribunal directions intact. The appeal is allowed in part.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sarla Verma v. D.T.C doctrine on multiplier in motor accident claims (proper multiplier for 46-year-old claimant)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in fixing monthly income at Rs.1,250 and failed to award loss of earnings, despite evidence suggesting an earning capacity of around Rs.3,000 per month as an electrician. He asserts involuntary unemployment during treatment, improper application of the multiplier, and undervaluation of loss of amenities. He relies on Sarla Verma v. D.T.C to argue that a higher multiplier (13) should be used given his age (46) and that the overall compensation should reflect the real economic loss and suffering, including loss of earnings. The claim seeks recalculation of compensation under loss of earnings and loss of amenities and an appropriate increase in the total award, with interest as directed.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the Tribunal’s determination of 7% disability and the component amounts for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and other heads were reasonably calculated on the evidence. They contend that there was no reliable evidence of Rs.3,000 monthly earnings and the Tribunal’s fixed income figure was justified. Although Sarla Verma was relied upon to address multiplier, they argue the overall liability should not be increased beyond the Tribunal’s award, and interest should follow the Tribunal’s order.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sarla Verma v. D.T.C	[(2009)6 SCC 121]	Positive	The court cites the Sarla Verma decision to apply the correct multiplier for a claimant aged around 46, reducing the Tribunal’s multiplier and recomputing compensation.

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 17TH AUGUST 2011 / 26TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 1988 of 2005() ----------------------OPMV.132/1995 of II ADDL. M.A.C.T., KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/CLAIMANT -------------------------------- K.V.RAVEENDRAN, S/O.K.CHINNAN, KALAM PARAMBIL HOUSE, KAPPIKAD, KOTTANAD POST, MEPPADI, WYNAD. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. E.AMSA, S/O.KUNHAYAMU, EROTH HOUSE, CHEMMANIODE POST, MALAPPURAM. 2. K.K.SAIDALAVI, S/O.UMMEELKUTTY KAVILKUNNU HOUSE, EDAPPARA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM. 3. M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE; WHITE LINES BUILDING, KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * *** M.A.C.A.No.1988 of 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17[th] day of August 2011 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **R.BASANT,J** Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident, which took place on 06/11/1994. He had suffered fracture of both bone lower 1/3[rd] of right forearm. He was an inpatient for a period of 14 days. He suffered disability to the extent of 7% as ascertained by a medical board to which the appellant was referred to. The Tribunal by the impugned award directed payment of an amount of Rs.45,800/- as compensation as per the details given below: Disability : Rs.16,800/(Rs.1,250/- x 12 x 16 x7/100) Pain and suffering : Rs.17,000/Loss of amenities : Rs.8,000/Other counts : Rs.4,000/- **Total** ---------------------- **Rs.45,800/-** ========= 2 M.A.C.A.No.1988 of 2005 2. The learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company have been heard. The challenge against the impugned award is only on the ground of inadequacy of the quantum of compensation. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the monthly income reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.1,250/- is grossly inadequate. The appellant was an electrician earning an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem, it is contended. No better evidence has been addduced at all. The tribunal, in the absence of any better evidence, proceeded to assume that the monthly income must have been Rs.1,250/-. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a person aged above 40 years and in any view of the matter, the tribunal had grossly erred in reckoning the monthly income as Rs.1,250/- only. The learned counsel for the petitioner then contends that the tribunal has omitted to award any amount under the head of loss of earnings. The appellant must have been involuntarily unemployed for a long period of time because of the injuries and treatment. We agree with the learned counsel that appropriate amount of compensation deserves to be awarded under the head of loss of earnings. 3 M.A.C.A.No.1988 of 2005 Disability to the extent of 7% is accepted by the tribunal. However, the tribunal did not realistically quantify the loss of amenities. Only an amount of Rs.8,000/- has been awarded. The same deserves to be modified, contends the counsel. We agree. 4. The learned counsel for the Insurance company alertly points out that the appellant had described himself to be a person aged 46 years in 1995 when the claim was filed. The tribunal, for inexplicable reasons, by looking into the wound certificate etc. assumed the age of the appellant to be 40 years and thus committed the error of reckoning 16 as the multiplier. Going by the dictum in **Sarla Verma v. D.T.C [(2009)6 SCC 121],** for a person like the appellant who was admittedly 46 years old when the claim was lodged, only 13 should have been taken as the multiplier, contends the learned counsel for the Insurance company. We agree. We are not satisfied that amount awarded under any other heads deserves upward modification/enhancement. 5. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.16,040/- as compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 4 M.A.C.A.No.1988 of 2005 |1.|Compensation for loss of earnings|Rs.4,000/-| |---|---|---| ||(Rs.2,000/- x 2)|| |2.|Compensation for reduction in|Rs.5,040/-| ||earning capacity|| ||[Rs.21,840/- (Rs.2,000/- x 12|| ||x 13 x 7/100) minus Rs.16,800/-]|| |3.|Loss of amenities (all dimensions)|Rs.7,000/-| ||(Rs.15,000/- minus Rs.8,000/-)|------------------| ||**Total**<br>|**Rs.16,040/-**| |||=======| 6. In the result, - a) This appeal is allowed in part. - b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of - Rs.16,040/- (Rupees sixteen thousand and forty only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the tribunal. c) We make it clear 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. ## **(R.BASANT, JUDGE)** ## **(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)** jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge M.A.C.A.No.1988 of 2005 5 M.A.C.A.No.1988 of 2005 6 7 M.A.C.A.No.1988 of 2005 **K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.** No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010