K.V.SURESH BABU v LALLA SURESH; SURESH; THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.K.Abdul Rehim
Shircy V.
Judgment Date: 2017-12-11
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed in part. The Tribunal’s total compensation is enhanced by Rs. 1,82,000 with interest from the date of petition. The 3rd respondent-insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount (less any already paid) before the Tribunal within two months of receiving a copy of this judgment; on deposit, the appellant will be entitled to withdraw the amount upon appropriate orders by the Tribunal.
Final Disposition: Partial relief granted; enhanced compensation with deposit directions to insurer; matter disposed with directions for withdrawal after deposit.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.V.SURESH BABU

Respondents

LALLA SURESH
SURESH
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri P. Santhosh (Poduval)
• Smt. R. Rajitha

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri VPK Panicker

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Appeal under MACA No. 911 of 2011 from the Thrissur Addl. MACT award in OP(MV) 1431/2003. The claimant-pillion rider suffered severe injuries in a motorcycle accident on 1 April 2003, and the Tribunal held the second respondent at fault with the insurer liable for compensation. The appellant contends the compensation is grossly inadequate: the Tribunal used a notional income of Rs. 2,500 despite the appellant asserting an income of Rs. 6,000 and argues for higher maintenance, transportation, and loss-of-amenities amounts. The appellant’s medical records (Ext. A12) show permanent disability and various neurological/psychological impairments, with a PW1 assessment of 25% disability, which the Tribunal reduced to 10% for disability for compensation purposes. The High Court relies on Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236 to justify a higher notional income in 2003 conditions, fixing Rs. 4,000 per month for the appellant’s earnings, and determines the disability to be 25% as per Ext. A12. The Court recalculates loss of earning, permanent disability, transportation, bystander expenses, and loss of amenities, granting an overall enhancement of Rs. 1,82,000 and directs deposit by the insurer. The appeal is thus allowed in part with enhanced compensation and deposit directions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act (as applicable to compensation)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Appellant contends that the Tribunal’s notional income of Rs. 2,500 is too low, given his asserted earnings of Rs. 6,000 per month and the extent of injuries. Citing Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram (2011) 13 SCC 236, the appellant argues for a higher notional income and a proper assessment of permanent disability (25% as per Ext. A12). He seeks re-determination of compensation under heads including loss of earning, permanent disability, transportation, and loss of amenities.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents argued through their counsel, but the judgment records that there was no dispute regarding negligence or liability; the focus was on quantum. The court notes no detailed counter-arguments in the extract but ultimately upholds liability and modifies compensation after due reassessment.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Cited and applied by the court to justify a higher notional income for the appellant, adapting the principle to the 2003 socio-economic context.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939 MACA.No. 911 of 2011 AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1431/2003 of ADDL.M.A.C.T., THRISSUR APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER K.V.SURESH BABU, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KUNNATH HOUSE, ANAIKKAL,, KANIPPAYOOR, POORKELANGAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: 1. LALLA SURESH, PALLITHAZHATH HOUSE, - ENAMAKKAL P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. ## 2. SURESH, S/O.APPU, CHOONDAPURAKKAL - HOUSE, KANIPPAYOOR P.O., KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, U BROTHERS BUILDING,, GURUVAYOOR ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM P.O.,, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R,R3 BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## C.K.ABDUL REHIM & SHIRCY V, JJ. ----------------------------------------------MACA. No. 911 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 11th day of December, 2017 ## JUDGMENT ## Abdul Rehim,J. Claimant in OP(MV).No.1431/2003 on the files of the Addl. MACT, Thrissur is the appellant herein, challenging the award to the extent that the amount of compensation determined is insufficient and inadequate. 2. The accident occurred on 1.4.2003 when a motor cycle on which the appellant was travelling as a pillion rider toppled, allegedly due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the 2[nd] respondent. The Tribunal found negligence on the part of the 2[nd] respondent in causing the accident and the 3[rd] respondent herein, being the insurer of the vehicle, was held liable for payment of the amount of compensation awarded. There is no dispute in the present appeal regarding the findings on the aspects of negligence and on the liability of the 3[rd] respondent. MACA.911/2011 2 3. Heard; counsel for the appellant and Standing Counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent. 4. Contention of the appellant is that, despite the claim that the appellant was an 'upholstery worker' and was earning a monthly income of Rs.6000/-, the Tribunal adopted only a notional income of Rs.2500/-. It is further contended that the amounts awarded under various heads like, transportation expenses, extra nourishment, damages to clothing, loss of amenities and enjoyment in life etc. are on the lower side. We take note of the fact that the appellant sustained very severe injuries for which he had undergone inpatient treatment at various hospitals, wherein he had undergone different surgical procedures. Altogether he had undergone treatment for more than 40 days as inpatient. Thereafter he continued treatment as out patient for a prolonged period. It is proved through Ext.A12 certificate issued by PW1 Doctor that, the injuries sustained had resulted in various impairments to the appellant, which are neurological, psychological etc. and which are of MACA.911/2011 3 permanent in nature. PW1 had assessed the extent of permanent disability suffered by the appellant at 25%. But the Tribunal found that there is no reason to agree with the assessment made with regard to the occupational disability. Therefore the Tribunal reduced the extent of disability to 10%, for the purpose of computing the compensation. 5. It is true that the appellant had not produced any evidence to prove his occupation and income. But we are of the opinion that the amount of Rs.2500/- adopted by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The hon'ble apex court in the decision in **Ramachandrappa vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236)** had fixed the notional income of a coolie worker at Rs.4500/-, that too with respect to an accident which occurred in the year 2004. Considering the socio-economic situation which prevailed in the year 2003 we are of the opinion that the notional income of the appellant can reasonably be assessed at Rs.4000/- per month. So also we do not find any acceptable ground to concur with the MACA.911/2011 4 decision of the Tribunal for reducing the extent of disability to 10%. Considering Ext.A12 certificate and the oral testimony of PW1, we are of the opinion that the extent of disability need to be accepted as assessed in Ext.A12. Calculated on that basis, compensation for loss of earning is refixed at Rs.24,000/-, which will entitle the appellant for an enhancement of Rs.9000/-. Consequent to refixation of the monthly income and the extent of disability, the amount payable under the head of permanent disability need to be reworked at Rs.2,40,000/- (4000 x 12 x 17 x 25%). This will entitle the appellant for a further enhancement of Rs.153,000/- 6. We are of the opinion that the transportation charges of Rs.2000/- awarded by the Tribunal is insufficient in view of the fact that the appellant was treated at various hospitals for a considerable period. We award a further sum of Rs.3000/- on that count. So also the amount of Rs.3000/- awarded towards bystander's expenses is inadequate. We refix the said amount at Rs.10,000/- (250 x MACA.911/2011 5 40), which will entitle for an enhancement of Rs.7000/- on that count. Considering the disability suffered by the petitioner, the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life is refixed at Rs.25,000/-, which will entitle for a further enhancement of Rs.10,000/- on that count. We do not find any ground existing to interfere with the award under other heads. Thus, we hold that the appellant is entitled for a total enhancement of Rs.1,82,000/-. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by a further amount of Rs.1,82,000/-. The said amount will carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of the claim petition, till realisation. 8. The 3[rd] respondent insurance company shall make deposit of the amount, less the amount if any already paid, before the Tribunal, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 9. Needless to observe that, on such deposit the MACA.911/2011 6 appellant/claimant will be entitled to approach the Tribunal seeking withdrawal and the Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders thereon. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE SHIRCY V, JUDGE Pmn/ MACA.911/2011 7