High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-02-13Appeal allowed; award enhanced and modified; in...

Lawrence @ Laison T.A. v. Secretary, Autorickshaw Thozhilali Co-op. Society Ltd., P.G. Viju, and National Insurance Company Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.1947/2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
Judgment Date: 2024-02-13
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The award dated 28.02.2012 in O.P.(MV).No.998 of 2004 (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam) is modified by granting an additional Rs.3,57,200/-. The total compensation for disability and loss of earning capacity is recalculated to Rs.7,99,680/-, with Rs.3,07,200 as the additional amount and an extra Rs.50,000 for marriage prospects. The 3rd respondent (insurer) is directed to deposit the amount with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization, and to bear proportionate costs. The period of delay (725 days) is to be excluded for interest. The claimant must supply PAN, Aadhaar, and bank details within one month, failing which the insurer may deposit the funds before the Tribunal. It is further clarified that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned for calculation of interest prior to deposit.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; award enhanced and modified; insurer to deposit enhanced amount with interest; delay condonation for calculation of interest; deposition details and PAN/Aadhaar requirements to be fulfilled.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Lawrence @ Laison T.A., S/O T.R. Antony, Thaivelikakath House, B Colony, Thengode P.O., Kakkanad, Cochin-682 030

Respondents

Secretary, Autorickshaw Thozhilali Co-op. Society Ltd., No.E-324, Lisie Junction, Cochin-682 018
P.G. Viju, S/O Gopaln, Parackal Veettil, Njarapalthu House, B Colony, Thengodu P.O., Kakkanad, Cochin-682 030
National Insurance Company Ltd., Cochin Division Office, P.B. No.1215, Ajay Vihar, M.G. Road, Cochin-682 016

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Rahul Sasi
• Smt. Neethu Prem

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. A. A. Mohammed Nazir

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal arises from a motor accident in Ernakulam on 30 November 2003 in which Lawrence @ Laison T.A., the appellant, riding as a pillion on a motorcycle, sustained severe injuries when the autorickshaw (driven rashly by the 2nd respondent) collided with the motorcycle. The autorickshaw was owned by the 1st respondent and insured by the 3rd respondent. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, held the insurer liable and awarded Rs. 8,22,465 with interest at 9% per annum. The appellant challenged the quantum, particularly under the heads of disability and loss of earning capacity, while the insurer contested only the quantum and the extent of negligence. The Tribunal relied on Exts. A1–A8, accepted negligence on the part of the autorickshaw driver, and proceeded to determine compensation. The High Court, in revisiting the quantum, noted that the appellant claimed Rs. 5,000 monthly income and a painter’s occupation, but there was no documentary support for a painter’s status; there was no evidence to improve the income beyond Rs. 4,000 per month, following the Ramachandrappa principle (though the year differed). The court assessed a 70% functional disability, while applying the Pranay Sethi formula for future prospects (age 26 at the time of the accident) and a multiplier of 17 to recompute the loss of earning capacity, arriving at Rs. 7,99,680 for disability and loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal’s other heads were deemed reasonable, with a small addition for marriage prospects and a separate component for non-economic losses. The appeal was allowed, increasing the award by Rs. 3,57,200 and directing deposit with 8% interest, along with facilitating details for payment and condoning the delay.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Functional disability concept
Future prospects in calculation of loss of earning capacity (Pranay Sethi)
Multiplier principle in compensation awards
Ramachandrappa principle for determining baseline income (absence of evidence)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contended that the Tribunal’s quantum under disability and loss of earning capacity did not adequately reflect his serious injuries and reduced earning prospects. He urged that his income should be higher (claiming Rs. 5,000/month) and that the disability percentage and future earning prospects should be recalibrated using established principles, including the multiplier method and the Pranay Sethi framework. The painter identity was not substantiated by records, and the court was urged to consider actual evidence or a reasonable standard income in 2003.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued liability was properly determined against the insurer and that compensation should be based on evidence presented. They contested the wage figure and the extent of disability, maintaining that the earlier award did not unjustifiably overstate damages, and pressed for adoption of a cautious approach consistent with the available medical evidence and jurisprudence.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.	2011 (13) SCC 236	Distinguished	Cited as a baseline for determining monthly income in absence of evidence; however, the decision year differs (2003 vs 2004) leading the court to distinguish rather than apply the exact figure.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	[2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)]	Positive	Applied to grant 40% future prospects for a 26-year-old at the time of accident, illustrating acceptance of the Pranay Sethi framework in calculating enhanced compensation.

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 Lawrence @ Laison T.A. v. Secretary, Autorickshaw Thozhilali Co-op. Society Ltd., P.G. Viju, and National Insurance Company Ltd. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

MACA.No.1947/2014 1 # _IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM_ ## _PRESENT_ _THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 24TH MAGHA, 1945_ ## _MACA NO. 1947 OF 2014_ _AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPMV 998/2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ERNAKULAM_ ## _APPELLANT/PETITIONER:_ _LAWRENCE @ LAISON T.A., S/O T.R. ANTONY, THAIVELIKAKATH HOUSE, B COLONY, THENGODE P.O., KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 030._ _BY ADVS. SRI.RAHUL SASI SMT.NEETHU PREM_ ## _RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:_ - _1 SECRETARY, AUTORICKSHAW THOZHILALI CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.NO.E-324, LISIE JUNCTION, COCHIN-682 018._ - _2 P.G.VIJU, S/O GOPALAN, PARACKAL VEETTIL, NJARAPALATHU HOUSE, B COLONY, THENGODU P.O., KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 030._ - _3 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., COCHIN DIVISION OFFICE, P.B.NO.1215, AJAY VIHAR, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-682 016._ _BY ADVS.SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR_ _THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:_ MACA.No.1947/2014 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant was the petitioner in O.P.(MV). No.998 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The said claim petition was submitted by him seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident that occurred on 30.11.2003. 2. The accident occurred when the appellant was pillion riding on a motorcycle, it was hit by an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-7 T/6548 driven by the 2[nd] respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The 1[st] respondent was the registered owner of the said vehicle and it was insured with the 3[rd] respondent. The appellant was aged 26 years at the time of the accident and he claimed to be a painter with a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. He sustained very serious injuries and the claim petition was submitted in such circumstances. 3. The 2[nd] respondent filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle on which the appellant was pillion riding. The 3[rd] respondent/the insurer of the autorickshaw, filed a written statement admitting the coverage of policy for the said vehicle but MACA.No.1947/2014 3 denied the negligence on the part of the 2[nd] respondent. They disputed the quantum of compensation also. 4. Evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A8 from the side of the appellants and no evidence was adduced from the side of the respondents. After appreciating the materials placed on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the autorickshaw and being the insurer, the 3[rd] respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.8,22,465/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 5. Heard Sri.Neethu Prem, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Mohammed Nazir A.A, learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent. 6. The only dispute in this case relates to the quantum of compensation. The main challenge is in relation to the compensation under the head of disability and the consequential loss of earning capacity. The tribunal assessed an amount of Rs.4,92,480/- by taking note of the monthly income as Rs.4,000/- MACA.No.1947/2014 4 and accepting the physical disability as 57%. As far as the monthly income is concerned, even though the learned counsel for the appellant sought enhancement of the said figure, on perusal of the records, it is seen that there is no evidence to substantiate the same. Even though he claimed to be a painter, in any of the documents including the police records, there is no reference of the appellant as a painter. In the absence of any evidence showing that he was a painter, the amount has to be fixed by adopting the usual method that is taken into consideration in the case of the assessment of monthly income. In this regard, it is to be noted that in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.[2011 (13) SCC 236],** the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to take the monthly income of an ordinary worker as Rs.4,500/- in respect of an accident that occurred in the year 2004 even in the absence of any evidence. Since in this case the accident occurred in the year 2003 the monthly income of Rs.4,000/- appears to be reasonable and therefore, I do not find scope for interference. 7. However, with regard to the percentage of physical disability, some modification is required. Of course, it is true that MACA.No.1947/2014 5 as per the Ext.A6 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, the whole body disability was certified as 57%. The injuries sustained by the appellant as evidenced by Ext.A4 are as follows: - “1. Head injury. 2. Fracture of right frontal bone. 3. Fracture nasal bone. 4. Fracture of right maxilla. 5. Extradural haematoma right tempral. 6. Brain oedema. 7. Pneumociphalus. 8. Extensive laceration right eyelids. 9. Extensive laceration right side of face. 10. Complete destruction of right orbital wall. 11. Right eye completely avulsed from the socket. 12. Laceration completely avulsed from the socket. 13. Laceration of abdominal wall. 14. Laceration right knee. 15. Fracture right knee. 16. Loss of right eye. 8. The description of the injuries as referred to above would indicate that it not only resulted in physical disability of 57%, but it will seriously affect his earning capacity as well. It is evident from the nature of the injuries that it may not be possible for him to engage himself in any employment, where physical excretion is required. Therefore, this is a fit case in which MACA.No.1947/2014 6 functional disability is to be taken into account. In such circumstances, a slightly higher percentage needs to be adopted for the purpose of computing compensation for functional disability. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to fix it as 70%. 9. Since the appellant sustained very serious injuries and consequential disabilities, the same would seriously affect his earning capacity. Therefore, future prospects are also to be taken into account while assessing the compensation. As he was 26 years old at the time of the accident, 40% of the income is to be added for the said purpose in the light of **National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)].** Thus, while re-assessing the compensation with the above criteria, the amount of compensation for disability and loss of earning capacity would come to Rs.7,99,680/- [(4000+40%) x 12 x 17 x 70/100]. The amount already awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.4,92,480/- and thus the additional compensation would come to Rs.3,07,200/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under other heads such as pain and suffering and loss of amenities and inconvenience of life appears to be reasonable. However, one aspect to be noticed is MACA.No.1947/2014 7 that, the disability of such a serious nature was suffered by the appellant at the young age of 26 years and it will certainly affect his marriage prospects. Therefore, some amount needs to be granted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to fix it as Rs.50,000/-. Accordingly, the total additional compensation would come to Rs.3,57,200/- [307200+ 50000]. In the result, this appeal is allowed. Award dated 28.02.2012 in O.P.(MV).No.998 of 2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam is hereby modified by granting an additional amount of Rs.3,57,200/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty-seven thousand and two hundred only) and the said amount shall be deposited by the 3rd respondent with interest of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. It is further clarified that, as the appeal was filed with a petition to condone the delay of 725 days, the Insurance Company shall be entitled to exclude the said period while computing the interest on the additional amount granted. It is further ordered that the claimant shall furnish the details of the PAN Card, AADHAR Card and Bank details to enable the Insurance Company to make the deposit as ordered above, within a period of one month from the date of MACA.No.1947/2014 8 receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case, he fails to furnish the said details, it shall be open for the Insurance Company to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal. **Sd/-** **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE** DG/14.2.24