High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-07-19Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; ...

MACA NO. 201 OF 2014

Case / Petition Number:MACA 201/14

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Basant Balaji, J.
Judgment Date: 2022-07-19
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court allowed the appeal, enhancing disability compensation to Rs 94,380 and total compensation to Rs 1,29,880 (from Rs 81,600 awarded by the Tribunal). It directed the Insurance Company (3rd respondent) to pay the enhanced amount with interest at 8% per annum from the petition date, and to transfer the funds to the claimant’s bank account via NEFT/RTGS within one month of certificate copy, with no interest accruing after the time limit if bank details are not provided. Respondents 2–4 were held jointly liable for the enhanced amount consistent with the Tribunal’s liability findings; the Court noted the earlier appellate determination directing payment by the Insurance Company and upheld the liability framework.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; liability confirmed on the insurer; directions for payment including NEFT/RTGS and rate of interest.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.C.MANI S/O.CHACKO

Respondents

K.B. THAREKUTTY
FRAKRUDHEEN S/O MOIDEEN
THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
MOIDEEN SO.KOMU

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
• SRI.A.R.NIMOD

Counsels for Respondents

• ADV.K C SANTHOSH KUMAR
• ADV. AN SANTHOSH

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal pertaining to an award of the MACT, Thrissur, in a claim filed by K.C. Mani, a pillion rider injured on 8.1.2006 in an accident involving a motor cycle and an autorickshaw. The Tribunal awarded Rs 1,33,100 with 8% interest. The appellant contends the compensation was inadequately calculated, especially for disability and loss of earnings. The appellant argues his disability is 13% (whole-body) and that, based on the notional income principle from Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., the monthly notional income in 2006 should be Rs 5,500, leading to higher disability compensation (Rs 94,380) and a higher overall award. The Tribunal’s figures—Rs 60,600 for disability, Rs 21,000 for six months’ loss of earnings, and minor heads—are challenged. The respondents contend the claim is excessive and challenge the liability and quantum. The High Court re-evaluates the components, awards enhanced disability (Rs 94,380), increases loss of earnings to Rs 33,000, adds Rs 2,000 for nourishment and Rs 500 for clothing, making the total enhanced sum Rs 1,29,880. The appeal is allowed, directing the Insurance Company to pay the enhanced amount with 8% interest from the petition date, via NEFT/RTGS, and clarifies joint liability of the respondents and payment modalities.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income principle (Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant argues that the disability compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too low. At 13% whole-body disability for a 51-year-old carpenter earning Rs 7,000 per month, notional income for 2006 should be Rs 5,500 per month per Ramachandrappa. This yields disability compensation of Rs 94,380 (5500x12x11x13/100), far above the Tribunal’s Rs 60,600. The six-month loss of earnings should be Rs 33,000 (not Rs 21,000); extra nourishment Rs 2,000; clothing Rs 500. The result is an enhanced total of Rs 1,29,880, with interest from petition date and NEFT/RTGS payment. The appellant seeks the enhanced amount and appropriate interest with bank details on record; liability remains across respondents 2–4, with 3rd respondent (insurer) liable for enhanced payment.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the claimed compensation is excessive and that the owner’s liability is disputed by the 4th respondent. They contend the Tribunal’s assessment was appropriate and that the insurance company should not be held liable for inflated figures. They also disputed negligence and ownership, arguing that the facts do not warrant the enhanced computation and that liability should be restricted as per the findings of the MACT and subsequent court judgments.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd	2011 (13) SCC 236	Positive	Used to establish the notional monthly income (Rs. 5,500) for computing disability compensation for a 2006 accident, forming the basis for the enhanced calculation.

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 MACA NO. 201 OF 2014 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 19[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1944 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 201 OF 2014`** ``` OPMV 773/2006 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR EC ACT CASES & MOTOR ``` ## **`ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,TSR`** ## **`APPELLANT/S:`** ``` K.C.MANI S/O.CHACKO, RESIDING AT KOLLAMELATHU HOUSE, P.O.ELANAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.A.R.NIMOD ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 K.B.THAREKUTTY RESIDING AT MACHINGATHODI HOUSE,` - `P.O.MUNDAKKOTTUKURISSI, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD-679 122.` - `2 FRAKRUDHEEN S/O.MOIDEEN, RESIDING AT ALIYATHODI HOUSE KARALMANNA, CHEPULASSERY, PALAKKAD-679 506.` - `3 THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH: JRJ COMPLEX, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD-679 101.` - `4 MOIDEEN SO.KOMU RESIDING AT ALIYANTHODY HOUSE, KARALMANNA CHERPULLASERY, PALAKKAD-679 506.` ``` ADV.K C SANTHOSH KUMAR ADV. AN SANTHOSH ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **MACA 201/14** -2- ## **JUDGMENT** (Dated this the 19[th] day of July 2022) The petitioner in O.P. (MV) No.773 of 2006 on the files of the MACT, Thrissur is the appellant. The claim 2. The facts of the case is as follows: On 8.1.2006 at about 11 am, when the appellant was a pillion rider in a motor cycle bearing reg.no.KL-8-AF 9342, an autorikshaw bearing reg.no.KL-9-L-2805 driven by the 2[nd] respondent hit against the motor cycle and due to the said impact, he was thrown away to the public road and sustained serious injuries. According to the appellant, the accident happened due to the negligence on the part of the autorikshaw driver ## **MACA 201/14** -3- by the 2[nd] respondent. 4[th] respondent is the RC owner at the time of the accident and 3[rd] respondent is the Insurance Company. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed written statement admitting the policy of the autorikshaw involved in the accident. It was contended that the compensation claimed is excessive. 4. Fourth respondent also filed a written statement contending that he is not the owner of the autorikshaw and disputed the negligence on the part of the 2[nd] respondent. 5. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,33,100/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition. It is aggrieved by the said award, this appeal is filed. **MACA 201/14** -4- 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the disability compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very low. He contended that the appellant was a carpenter aged 51 years and he was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. But the Tribunal took the monthly income only at Rs.3,500/- and awarded the compensation for disability. The disability certificate produced shows that he was having 13% whole body disability. So, I am inclined to accept the disability as 13%. The appellant, being a person aged 51 years, going by the decision reported in _**Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [2011 (13) SCC 236]** the monthly notional_ income of a person, who met with an accident in 2006 is Rs.5,500/-. Accordingly, the calculation for permanent disability would be **MACA 201/14** -5- 5500x12x11x13/100= 94,380/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.60,600/- under the head. 7. The loss of earning for six months at the rate of Rs.5,500/- will come to Rs.33,000/-, less the amount of Rs.21,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 8. The appellant was hospitalised three times and was inpatient for 15 days. For extra nourishment, through he claimed Rs.3,000/- nothing was granted by the Tribunal. Taking into consideration of the age of the appellant, the injuries sustained and the treatment underwent, I am inclined to grant Rs.2,000/- under the head. 9. An amount of Rs.500/-, as claimed under the head damage to clothing, is granted to the appellant. Accordingly, the following enhancements are made to ## **MACA 201/14** -6- ## the award passed by the Tribunal: |Sl. No.|Head of Claim|Amt. Awarded by Tribunal (Rs.)|Amt. Enhanced in appeal (Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Compensation for disability|60,600|94,380| |2.|Loss of earnings|21,000/-|33,000| |3.|Extra nourishment|-|2,000| |4.|Damage to clothing|-|500| ||Total|81,600/-|1,29,880/-| ||Amount enhanced … 1,29,880-81,600**= Rs.48,280/-**||| In the result, the appeal is allowed and the Insurance Company shall pay interest for the amounts awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award and for the enhanced amounts at the rate of 8% from the date of petition. If any amounts have already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. The claimants shall produce the ## **MACA 201/14** -7- 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 Tribunal ordered that respondent Nos.2 to 4 are jointly liable to pay the compensation. Against the said finding, the 4[th] respondent has filed an appeal as MACA No.1715 of 2015 before this court and this court by judgment dated 11/2/2021 allowed the appeal and directed the Insurance to pay the entire amount covered by the judgment. Hence, the **MACA 201/14** Insurance Company 3[rd] respondent is liable to pay the enhanced compensation ordered in this judgment also. ## **SD** **BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE** _dl/_