High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-03-01Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation o...

M.A.C.A. No. 1940 of 2008

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.1940 OF 2008

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2021-03-01
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed in part. The Medical Board’s 10% disability is accepted; monthly income is fixed at Rs. 2,000 as per Ramachandrappa; the compensation is recomputed to Rs. 50,750, with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of application till realization. Respondent No. 5 (The National Insurance Co. Ltd.) is liable to pay the enhanced amount.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation of Rs. 50,750 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization; The National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Respondent No. 5) liable to pay the enhanced amount.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M.P.Shameer S/O Assain

Respondents

K.Moideen
Raheem So Ali Thandam Veettil House, Anappara, Kunnamangalom Post, Kozhikode
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, While Lines Building, Kallai, Kozhikode
K.P. Nisar S/O Moideen Koya
The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office II, Noor Complex, Mavoor Road, Kozhikode
Muneer S/O Moideen Puthiyoth House, Kozhikode

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SMT.K.V.RESHMI

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.E.M.JOSEPH

Case Synopsis & Summary

MACA 1940 of 2008 is an appeal by the injured claimant, M.P. Shameer, challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, award in O.P.(M.V). No. 470/2000 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The accident occurred on 14 November 1999 when the claimant, a 23-year-old coolie, was travelling in an auto-rickshaw and was struck by a jeep, causing injuries and hospitalization. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 28,650 as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum, having fixed the claimant’s monthly income at Rs. 1,500 and assessed disability at 5%. The appellant argues for higher income based on Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram (2011) and challenges the 5% disability as per the Tribunal’s rejection of the Medical Board Certificate (Exhibit C1) which stated 10% disability. The Medical Board certificate was criticized by the Tribunal for lack of physical verification, but the High Court notes that a Medical Board certificate cannot be discounted on that ground. Relying on Ramachandrappa, the Court increases monthly income to Rs. 2,000 and reconsiders disability, resulting in a revised compensation. The judgment ultimately awards Rs. 50,750 to the appellant, with 7.5% interest from the date of application till realization, and allows the appeal in part.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant’s counsel contends that Shameer, a young coolie worker aged about 23 at the time of the accident, was inadequately compensated because the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs. 1,500 and 5% disability, despite the Medical Board Certificate (Exhibit C1) indicating 10% disability. Relying on Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram (2011) (13) SCC 236, the appellant seeks a higher monthly income of Rs. 2,000 and a re-evaluation of disability with corresponding compensation. The counsel asserts that there is no legal requirement for the injured to be present for physical verification when the Medical Board certifies disability and that the Tribunal’s rejection of Exhibit C1 on technical grounds is unwarranted. The appeal also seeks reassessment of heads such as loss of earning, loss of amenities, pain and suffering, and related expenses, arguing that the revised disability and income should yield greater compensation.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent’s counsel contends that there is no sufficient evidence to substantiate the enhanced claims and that the Tribunal’s award should not be disturbed. They argue that the appellant failed to prove his claims adequately and that the Medical Board’s dispute over verification justifies not accepting higher disability. They maintain that the original quantum, including the loss heads, should stand unless proven by substantial evidence. The respondents oppose any further enhancement and liability allocation remains as determined by the Tribunal, subject to statutory limits.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram	2011(13) SCC 236	Positive	The court places reliance on the Ramachandrappa principle to fix the claimant’s monthly income at Rs. 2,000 and endorses the approach to evaluate disability and compensation consistent with that precedent.

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 M.A.C.A. No. 1940 of 2008 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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **MACA.No.1940 OF 2008** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 470/2000 DATED 04-12-2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOZHIKODE** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **M.P.SHAMEER S/O.ASSAIN, AGED 31 YEARS, MURIYIL POTTAMMAL,, CHELAVOOR P.O., MOOZHIKKAL,KOZHIKOD. PIN-673571** **BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**K.MOIDEEN**| |---|---| ||**S/O.ALI,**| ||**CHEMATHU HOUSE,**| ||**KUNNAMANGALAM P.O.,KOZHIKODE.**| |**2**|**RAHEEM SO ALI THANDAM VEETTIL HOUSE**| ||**ANAPPARA, KUNNAMANGALAM POST, KOZHIKODE.**| |**3**|**THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.**| ||**DIVISIONAL OFFICE, WHILE LINES BUILDING,, KALLAI**| ||**RIAD, KOZHIKODE.**| |**4**|**K.P. NISAR SO MOIDEEN KOYA**| ||**KALLIPARAMBA HOUSE, CHELAVOOR, KOZHIKODE.**| |**5**|**THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.**| ||**DIVISIONAL OFFICE II, NOOR COMPLEX, MAVOOR, ROAD,**| ||**KOZHIKODE.**| |**6**|**MUNEER**| ||**S/O MOIDEEN PUTHIYOTH HOUSE**| ||**KOZHIKODE.**| ||**R1 BY ADV. SRI.E.M.JOSEPH**| **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA.No.1940 OF 2008 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **--------------------------------------M.A.C.A. No. 1940 of 2008 -----------------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of March 2021** ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant is the injured/claimant in O.P.(M.V). No.470/2000 on the files of the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The above claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The short facts are like this:- On 14.11.1999, at about 2.30 p.m., the appellant was traveling in an auto-rickshaw bearing Registration No. KL-11-J-4205 from Pilassery to Kunnamangalam and a jeep bearing Registration No. KL-11-J3825 came and dashed against the auto-rickshaw. The appellant sustained injuries and he was taken to the Medical college Hospital, Kozhikode. The appellant claimed compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) from the respondent Nos. 4 to 6. MACA.No.1940 OF 2008 3 3. To substantiate the case, Exhibit A1 to A8 were produced by the appellant. Exhibit B1 is produced on the side of the respondent and Exhibit C1 is the Medical Board Report. After going through the documents and pleadings, the Tribunal found that the appellant is entitled an amount of Rs. 28,650/(Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, this appeal is filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 5[th] respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was a coolie worker and he was aged 23 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 1,500/-. The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in **Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram [2011(13) SCC 236],** and submitted that atleast an amount of Rs. 2,000/- may be fixed as monthly income. The learned counsel also submitted that MACA.No.1940 OF 2008 4 the amount awarded for pain and sufferings also inadequate. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that Exhibit C1 is the Medical Board Certificate. As per Medical Board Certificate, 10% disability is found by the Medical Board. But, the tribunal arbitrarily fixed the disability as 5%. The finding of the Tribunal is not correct. 6. The learned counsel for the 5[th] respondent submitted that there is no evidence adduced by the appellant to substantiate the claims and therefore no enhancement may be made in this case. 7. I think there is some force in the arguments of the appellant. Exhibit C1 is the Medical Board Certificate. The main reason for rejecting the Medical Board Certificate is that the appellant was not present for physical verification. The relevant portion of the finding of the Tribunal is extracted below:- _“The petitioner has claimed disability and obtained a disability certificate and it is marked as Exhibit C1. Due to multiple injury sustained_ MACA.No.1940 OF 2008 5 _to zygomatic arch involving maxilary bones etc., it is certified that he has sustained 10% permanent disability. The petitioner was not present for physical verification. He has not made complaint of dis-figuration on this fact. The petitioner has also no case that the fractured bones were not united. Exhibit. C1 is also not proved. Accordingly, 5% is taken as disability.”_ I cannot agree with the Tribunal on this finding. When a Medical Board certifies that the appellant is having 10% disability, there is no reason to reject the same, on technical grounds. There is no rule that the appellant should be present in person before the Tribunal in all the cases in which Medical Board certifies that there is disability. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing Exhibit C1, the percentage of disability fixed by the Medical Board can be accepted. If that is the case, the amount of compensation fixed by the Tribunal for disability and loss of earning will change. In the light of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in MACA.No.1940 OF 2008 6 ## **Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram** **[2011(13) SCC 236],** I think the monthly income of the appellant can be safely fixed as Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only). 8. As far as the compensation for disability is concerned, the amount can be reassessed like this:- 2000x12x17x10/100=Rs. 40,800/- From the above amount the amount already paid i.e, Rs.13,600/- is to be deducted. Therefore, the total amount entitled towards disability is Rs.27,200/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand and Two Hundred Only) 9. As far as the loss of earning is concerned, taking the monthly income as Rs. 2,000/-, the appellant is entitled an enhanced amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only). 10. No amount is awarded for loss of amenities. After hearing both sides, I find that, for loss of amenities an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) can be granted. 11. For pain an sufferings, the amount awarded is Rs. MACA.No.1940 OF 2008 7 8000/-. Considering the injury sustained by the appellant and period of treatment, a further amount of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Only) can be allowed on that head also. 12. For damages to clothing and extra nourishment, an amount of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred Only) can be allowed. 13. Admittedly the appellant was in hospital for 27 days. Therefore, an amount of Rs.4,050/- (27x150) (Rupees Four Thousand and Fifty Only) can be allowed for by standers expenses. 14. Therefore, the enhanced compensation entitled by the appellant can be summarised like this:- **==> picture [330 x 208] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** Head Amount Compensation for disability Rs.27,200/- Loss of earnings Rs.1,000/- Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- Pain and sufferings Rs.7,000/- Damage to clothing and Rs.1,500/- extra nourishment Bystanders expenses Rs.4,050/- Total Rs.50,750/- **----- End of picture text -----** MACA.No.1940 OF 2008 8 Therefore, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified. The appellant is entitled an enhanced compensation of Rs.50,750/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of application till realisation. Respondent No. 5 is liable to pay the amount. **Sd/-** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** avs