High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-05-21Appeal allowed; Tribunal's award modified with ...

MACA NO. 4388 OF 2019

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 4388 OF 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Shoba Annama Eapen
Judgment Date: 2024-05-21
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed. The Tribunal’s award in OP(MV) 1117/2016 is modified: notional income increased to Rs 10,500 per month; loss of earnings enhanced to Rs 42,000; disability compensation revised to Rs 1,14,660 with additional Rs 27,300; pain and suffering remains Rs 30,000 and loss of amenities remains Rs 15,000. The total compensation becomes Rs 2,20,580 (Rs 1,83,280 + Rs 37,300). Interest at 8% p.a. from 05.10.2016 continues; the 3rd respondent insurer must deposit the enhanced amount within 60 days, with the claimant providing PAN/Aadhaar and bank details within one month. Disbursement will be in accordance with law.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; Tribunal's award modified with enhanced compensation (total Rs. 2,20,580); 8% interest from 05.10.2016; insurer to deposit within 60 days; PAN/Aadhaar and bank details to be provided; disbursement as per law.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mrs. Sarala, aged 52 years, W/o. Sekharan, Thottappilly House, Vellilamkunnu Desom, Muriyad Village and P.O. Thrissur District, PIN-680683

Respondents

Mr. Rajeev S/o. Sreedharan, Navaneetham House, Vellangallur Desom and P.O. Vadakkumkara Village, Thrissur District, PIN-680662
Mr. Sanjeev S/o. Sreedharan, Navaneetham House, Vellangallur Desom and P.O. Vadakkumkara Village, Thrissur District, PIN-680662
The Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Divisional Office, Park House, Round North, Thrissur, PIN-680001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. V. Binoy Ram

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. SMT. P.K. Santamma

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Motor Accident Claims Appeal arises from a common award in OP(MV) 1117/2016, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. Sarala, the appellant, was a pillion rider on a motorcycle when the Enfield Bullet, ridden by the 2nd respondent, collided with her bike. The Tribunal found no contributory negligence and directed the insurer to pay Rs. 1,83,280 with 8% interest from 05.10.2016. The appellant challenges the quantum on heads including notional income, disability, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, urging enhancement by relying on the principle in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. The record shows Exts. A1–A21 for the appellant and Ext. B1 for the insurer; there was no oral evidence. The appellant contends the notional income should be Rs. 10,500 per month (instead of Rs. 8,000) and that the disability should be assessed higher than 7% (whole-body disability certificate shows 11.86%). The respondents contend that the Tribunal’s awards were reasonable and that Ramachandrappa should not be mechanically applied. The High Court allows the appeal in part, enhances several heads, and increases the total compensation to Rs. 2,20,580, with Rs. 37,300 extra in appeal, while retaining 8% interest and directing deposit by the insurer.”

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that Ramachandrappa (2011) provides the basis for determining the notional income for a coolie; Rs 10,500 per month should be fixed instead of Rs 8,000 used by the Tribunal. She seeks notional income adjustment, higher loss of earnings (from Rs 32,000 to Rs 42,000), and a revised computation showing an enhanced disability compensation in light of the 11.86% whole-body disability (Ext. A8). The appellant also argues for greater compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, arguing that the injuries warrant higher heads and that medical expenses and loss of earning power need proper reflection. The prayer is for an overall recalculation and deposit of the enhanced amount with appropriate interest.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer contends the Tribunal’s assessment was proper; the notional income of Rs 8,000 is reasonable and Ramachandrappa should not be applied mechanically. It submits there is no contributory negligence and that the disability fixed at 7% is supported by the evidence. The awards already made for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, medical expenses, and other heads are within reasonable bounds. It opposes excessive enhancement and prays for upholding the Tribunal’s common award unless the court finds a clearly erroneous calculation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Principle from Ramachandrappa used to fix notional income at Rs. 10,500/month for a coolie, guiding the court to rely on notional income norms from the cited decision.

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. 4388 OF 2019 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 MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN** **TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946** **MACA NO. 4388 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPMV NO.1117 OF 2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **MRS. SARALA AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. SEKHARAN, THOTTAPPILLY HOUSE, VELLILAMKUNNU DESOM, MURIYAD VILLAGE AND P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 683 BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 MR. RAJEEV S/O. SREEDHARAN, NAVANEETHAM HOUSE, VELLANGALLUR DESOM AND P.O. VADAKKUMKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680662 2 MR. SANJEEV, S/O. SREEDHARAN, NAVANEETHAM HOUSE, VELLANGALLUR DESOM AND P.O. VADAKKUMKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 662 3 THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PARK HOUSE, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001 BY ADV. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** M.A.C.A.No.4388 of 2019 : 2 : ## **SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.** **========================= M.A.C.A.No. 4388 of 2019 ========================== Dated this the 21[st] day of May, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** This appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the petitioner in OP(MV) No.1117/2016 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The appellant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the common award dated 26.07.2019. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal. 2. According to the appellant, she was a pillion rider on a motorcycle. The offending vehicle bearing registration number KL-08-F-3806 Enfield Bullet motorcycle ridden by the 2[nd] respondent hit against the motorcycle in which the appellant was travelling and she sustained injuries in the accident. The 1[st] respondent is the insured /owner and the 3[rd] respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The appellant claimed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) as compensation under various heads. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a joint written M.A.C.A.No.4388 of 2019 : 3 : statement denying the allegations raised in the petition. Respondent No.3 also filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy but contended that the amounts claimed by the claimants under various heads were excessive and further contended contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. No oral evidence was adduced before the Tribunal. Exts.A1 to A21 were marked from the side of the appellant, and Ext.B1 is marked from the side of the 3[rd] respondent. 4. The Tribunal, on consideration of the entire issue, found that no contributory negligence can be attributed and since the vehicle had a valid insurance policy, directed the insurance company to pay an amount of Rs.1,83,280/- (Rupees one lakh eighty three thousand two hundred and eighty only), with interest at the rate of 8% from 05.10.2016 till realisation. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has approached this Court with the above appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant claimed enhancement on the following heads: M.A.C.A.No.4388 of 2019 : 4 : ## 7. Notional Income/Loss of earnings: The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was a coolie worker and her income ought to have been fixed at the rate on the basis of the decision in _**Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236].**_ The notional income ought to have been taken as Rs.10,500/-per month on the basis of the dictum laid down in _**Ramachandrappa (supra)**_ whereas the Tribunal had taken only Rs.8,000/- as the notional income. The learned Standing Counsel also submits that, on the basis of the judgment rendered in _**Ramachandrappa (supra)** ,_ the notional income can be taken as Rs.10,500/-. Accordingly, the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs. 8,000/- is enhanced to Rs.10,500/-. While reassessing the compensation under the head, ‘loss of earnings’ the amount of Rs.32,000/- granted by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.42,000/- and hence an additional amount under the said head will come to Rs.10,000/-. ## 8. Compensation for disability: The learned counsel for the appellant submits that Ext.A8 disability certificate issued by Dr. Jose Kurian Katturkaran, M.A.C.A.No.4388 of 2019 : 5 : Orthopaedic surgeon, Palace Hospital, Chalakudy, shows that the whole-body disability is 11.86%. However, the Tribunal has considered only 7% of disability for fixing disability compensation. However, I do not find any reason to interfere with the assessment of disability of 7% by the Tribunal. It is found to be reasonable. However, there will be an enhancement of the amount calculated under the head ‘disability compensation’ since there is an enhancement of notional income. The amount granted by the Tribunal under the above head was Rs.87,360/-. Hence, the total disability compensation will be Rs.1,14,660/- (Rs.10,500x7/100x12x13 = Rs.1,14,660/-). Out of the said amount, Rs.87,360/- already awarded by the Tribunal has to be deducted. Accordingly, the additional amount under the head disability compensation will come to Rs.27,300/-. 9. Compensation for Pain and Suffering and loss of amenities: The learned counsel for the appellant submits that, under the head pain and suffering, though an amount of Rs.1,00,000/was claimed, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.30,000/-. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company submits M.A.C.A.No.4388 of 2019 : 6 : that since the injury is only the non union of ulnar styloid and malunion of fracture radius and the disability assessed by the Tribunal is only 7%, the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal is reasonable. In the light of the injuries sustained by the appellant, the amount of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for pain and suffering is found to be reasonable. Similarly, for loss of amenities, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- which is found to be reasonable, and I am not inclined to grant any enhancement of compensation under those heads. The impugned Award is modified thus: |**Sl.** **No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount** **Claimed** **(Rs.)**|**Amount** **awarded by** **the** **Tribunal** **(Rs.)**|**Amount** **enhanced** **in Appeal** **(Rs.)**|**Total** **compensation** **(Rs.)**| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earnings|60,000|32,000|10,000|42,000 (10,500x4 months)| |2|Transportation expenses|10,000|1,000|No modification|1,000| |3|Extra nourishment|10,000|2,000|No modification|2,000| M.A.C.A.No.4388 of 2019 : 7 : |4|Damage to clothing|10,000|1,000|No modification|1,000| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |5|Bystander's expenses|20,000|1,200|No modification|1,200| |6|Medical expenses|60,000|13,720|No modification|13,720| |7|Pain and suffering|1,00,000|30,000|No modification|30,000| |8|Permanent disability and loss of earning power|2,00,000|87,360 (Rs.8,000x7/ 100x12x13)|27,300|1,14,660 (Rs.10,500x7/ 100x12x13)| |9|Loss of amenities|50,000|15,000|No modification|15,000| ||Total (Rs.)|5,20,000/- is limited to 2,00,000/-|1,83,280/-|37,300/-|2,20,580/-| In the result, the appeal is allowed. The Award dated 26.07.2019 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.(MV) 1117/2016 is hereby modified by awarding an additional amount of Rs.37,300/- (The total compensation is Rs.2,20,580/- that is Rs.1,83,280/- granted by the Tribunal + Rs.37,300/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 05.10.2016 till realisation and proportionate costs. M.A.C.A.No.4388 of 2019 : 8 : The 3[rd] respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, together with interest and costs, within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The claimant shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAR Card and bank details before the respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellant at the earliest in accordance with law. Sd/- **SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE** anm