High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeThe High Court disposed of the consolidated MAC...
MACA Nos. 14/2017, 530/2017, 557/2017, 4108/2016 (Consolidated) High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 14/2017; MACA NO. 530/2017; MACA NO. 557/2017; MACA NO. 4108/2016
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- The Honourable Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran
- Judgment Date
- 2023-03-23
- Court Decision / Holding
- The High Court admitted the appeals and disposed of them by partially enhancing and reordering awards. For the deceased in OP(MV) No.1417/2015, the notional income was fixed at Rs.10,000 per month with 40% future prospects; Funeral Expenses adjusted to Rs.15,000 with Rs.15,000 added for Loss of Estate; Loss of Love and Affection, Pain & Suffering, and Loss of Brotherly Affection were deleted except for the Loss of Consortium, in line with Pranay Sethi. For the injured in OP(MV) No.1458/2015, notional income was again Rs.10,000 per month with 40% future prospects; Disability-related award was raised; Pain & Suffering and Loss of Amenities increased, and future treatment with interest at 8% (instead of 9%). The awards in MACA Nos.14/2017 and 530/2017 were enhanced accordingly; the awards in MACA Nos.4108/2016 and 557/2017 were also adjusted with specified heads increased; deposits to be made within two months; overall, the court directed proportionate costs on enhanced amounts at 8% interest to run from claim date.
- Final Disposition
- The High Court disposed of the consolidated MACAs by partially enhancing and recalibrating the awards. It adopted Rs.10,000 per month as notional income with 40% future prospects, deducted a portion for personal expenses, and added Pranay Sethi-based allowances such as Loss of Estate and limited Loss of Consortium. It reduced certain heads like Loss of Love and Affection, Pain and Suffering, and Loss of Brotherly Affection, while increasing others such as Loss of Earning Power due to Disability, Pain and Suffering, and Loss of Amenities. Interest on enhanced amounts was fixed at 8% (from 9%). The awards were to be deposited within two months, with proportionate costs on the enhanced amounts.”} } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } }}
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Rajila
- Muhammed Basheer
- Muhammed Faik (Minor)
- Jabir V.P
- IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited
Respondents
- Hamsakoya V.
- Afsal V.
- IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.
- Muhammed Favad
- Muhammed Faiq (Minor)
- Rajila (mother)
- Muhammed Basheer
- Muhammed Faik (Minor)
- Jabir V.P.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN
- • Smt.Divya A.D.
Counsels for Respondents
- • SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
- • SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
- • SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.
- • SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is a consolidated Motor Accidents Claims Appeal decision rendered by the Kerala High Court on 23 March 2023 by Judge Devan Ramachandran. The four MACA petitions arise from a common accident involving Jabir V.P. and Muhammed Fabil (deceased) in April 2015, and challenge the common Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in OP(MV) Nos. 1417/2015 and 1458/2015. The Tribunal awarded Rs.6,00,000 to the deceased’s legal heirs and Rs.16,73,423 to Jabir V.P., with insurance companies contesting the quantum as excessive. The court admitted the appeals, disposed of them on undisputed record, and proceeded to revise the awards. It held that the Tribunal misapplied income principles: notional income for an 18-year-old should be guided by Ramachandrappa to Rs.10,000 per month, with 40% future prospects and a 1/2 deduction for personal expenses per Sarala Verma. It rejected several heads (Loss of Love & Affection, Pain & Suffering, Loss of Brotherly Affection) except a limited Loss of Consortium award under Pranay Sethi. For the injured claimant (minor) it endorsed 40% future prospects, corrected income to Rs.10,000 per month, and allowed additional damages including Loss of Estate and Marriage prospects where applicable. The court issued specific enhanced awards, reduced interest from 9% to 8%, and directed deposits within two months. The decisions reflect principled recalibration of compensation heads with jurisprudence on notional income, future prospects, and deductions to ensure just compensation.
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- 40% future prospects (as per Syed Sadiq & Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; Pranay Sethi)
- 1/2 deduction for personal expenses (Sarala Verma)
- notional income principle (Ramachandrappa)
- Loss of Consortium as per Pranay Sethi
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The appellants argued that the Tribunal erred in applying a notional income of Rs.30,000 per year for the deceased and the injured despite no reliable evidence of earnings. They urged adherence to Ramachandrappa for minimum notional income Rs.10,000 per month, 40% future prospects for young claimants, and inclusion of future prospects with appropriate deductions (Sarala Verma). They pressed for enhanced compensation under heads such as Loss of Estate, Loss of Consortium, and disfiguration allowances as per Pranay Sethi, Satwinder Kaur, and subsequent authorities. They asserted that the awards for the deceased and the injured were inadequate and required substantial enhancement.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contended that the Tribunal’s notional income and heads of compensation were appropriate and that no need existed to revise beyond the Tribunal’s conclusions. They argued that the 30k annual income was plausible given lack of verifiable earnings; they urged scaling down the excessive uplift in certain heads and maintaining the Tribunal’s approach unless evidence warranted modification. Insurance counsel stressed moderation of awards in line with recent Supreme Court precedents and the need to balance compensation against premium costs.
Cited Precedents (7)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. | (2011) 13 SCC 236 | Positive | Used to fix minimum notional income at Rs.10,000 per month for unascertainable earnings. |
| Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. | (2014) 2 SCC 735 | Positive | Adopted 40% future prospects for a young claimant (19 years in parts of the decision). |
| National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi | (2017) 4 KLT 662 | Positive | Approved inclusion of future prospects and related head of damages; used for Loss of Consortium considerations. |
| United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur | (2021) 11 SCC 780 | Positive | Cited to support limiting certain heads of compensation and addressing excessive awards. |
| Satish E. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Others | Civil Appeal Nos.8059-8060/2022 | Positive | Cited as the latest decision aligning future prospects with young claimants (age 19) and related considerations. |
| Sarala Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another | (2010) 2 KLT 802 | Positive | Guides 1/2 deduction for personal expenses from compensation. |
| Vijay Kumar Rastogi v. Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Transport Corporation | AIR 2018 SC 819 | Positive | Supports applying 40% future prospects for a 19-year-old claimant. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Nos. 14/2017, 530/2017, 557/2017, 4108/2016 (Consolidated) High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam 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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN`**
```
THURSDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1945
```
## **`MACA NO. 14 OF 2017`**
```
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 25.07.2016 IN OP(MV) NO.1417/2015 OF THE
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE
```
## **`APPELLANTS:`**
- `1 RAJILA, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O. BASHEER @ MUHAMMED BASHEER`
- `2 MUHAMMED BASHEER S/O. MUHAMMEDKUTTY, AGED 50 YEARS`
- `3 MUHAMMED FAIK (MINIOR), AGED 15 YEARS, DATE OF BIRTH 11/10/2001, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER RAJILA ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHEMMAIPADAM, KASHYAPADI, FEROKE.S.O,PO., FEROKE, KOZHIKODE-673671`
```
BY ADV SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN
```
## **`RESPONDENTS:`**
- `1 HAMSAKOYA V, S/O. KUNHIKOMU, RESIDING AT VALAPPIL HOUSE,PO., VELIMUKKU, THAYYILAKKADAVU, MALAPPURAMPIN-676317`
- `2 AFSAL.V., S/O. MOHAMMED, AGED 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT PARAYIL HOUSE, PO.,VELIMUKKU, THAYYILAKKADAVU, MALAPPURAM PIN-676317`
- `3 IFFCO, TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, 2ND FLOOR, AI RAHABA ARCADE,PUSHPA JUNCTION, KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673002`
- `4 MUHAMMED FAVAD, S/O. MUHAMMED BASHEER,AGED 22 YEARS,RESIDING AT CHEMMAIPADAM, KASHYAPADI, FEROKE.S.O, PO., FEROKE, KOZHIKODE-673671`
```
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.
```
MACA 14/17 & connected
2
```
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.03.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.530/2017, 557/2017
AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
```
MACA 14/17 & connected
3
# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`**
# **`PRESENT`**
```
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1945
```
## **`MACA NO. 530 OF 2017`**
```
AGAINST THE COMMON AWARD DATED 25.07.2016 IN OP(MV)
```
## **`NO.1417/2015 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE`**
## **`APPELLANT:`**
```
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER,IFFCO
BHAVAN,THOTTAKKAT ROAD,KOCHI-682011.
```
```
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
```
## **`RESPONDENTS:`**
- `1 RAJILA, W/O BASHEER @ MUHAMMED BASHEER, CHEMMAIPADAM,KASHAYAPADI, FEROKE.P.O, FEROKE.P.O,KOZHIKODE-673631.`
- `2 MUHAMMED BASHEER, S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, CHEMMAIPADAM, KASHAYAPADI, FERODE.P.O, FEROKE.P.O,KOZHIKODE-673631.`
- `3 MUHAMMED FAVAD, S/O.MUHAMMED BASHEER, CHEMMAIPADAM, KASHAYAPADI, FERODE.P.O, FEROKE.P.O,KOZHIKODE-673631.`
- `4 MUHAMMED FAIK (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT RAJILA, CHEMMAIPADAM, KASHAYAPADI,FEROKE.P.O,FEROKE.P.O, KOZHIKODE-673631.`
```
BY ADV SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN
```
```
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.03.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.14/2017 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
```
MACA 14/17 & connected
4
## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`**
```
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1945
MACA NO. 557 OF 2017
```
```
AGAINST THE COMMON AWARD DATED 25.07.2016 IN OP(MV)
NO.1458/2015 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE
```
## **`APPELLANT:`**
```
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
KOZHIKODE,NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL
MANAGER,IFFCO BHAVAN,THOTTAKKAT ROAD,KOCHI-682011.
```
```
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
```
## **`RESPONDENTS:`**
```
JABIR V.P, S/O ABDUL LATHEEF,VALIYAPRAMBATH
HOUSE, WEST VATTAPRAMBU, KADALUNDI.P.O,
CHALIYAM, KOZHIKODE,PIN-673302.
```
```
BY ADV SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN
```
```
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.03.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.14/2017 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
```
MACA 14/17 & connected
5
## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`**
## **`PRESENT`**
```
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1945
MACA NO. 4108 OF 2016
```
```
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 25.07.2016 IN OP(MV) NO.1458/2015 OF
```
```
THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE
```
## **`APPELLANT:`**
```
JABIR V.P, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL LATHEEF,
RESIDING AT VALIYAPARAMBATH HOUSE, WEST
VATTAPARAMBU, KADALUNDI P O, CHALIYAM,
KOZHIKODE 673302.
```
```
BY ADV SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN
```
## **`RESPONDENTS:`**
```
1HAMSAKOYA, S/O.KUNHIKOMU, RESIDING AT VALAPPIL
HOUSE, P O VELIMUKKU, THAYYILAKKADAVU,
MALAPPURAM-676317.
2AFSAL V, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED,
RESIDING AT PARAYIL HOUSE, P O VELIMUKKU,
THAYYILAKKADAVU, MALAPPURAM-676317.
3IFFCO, TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, AL RAHABA ARCADE, PUSHPA JUNCTION,
KALLI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673002.
```
```
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.
```
```
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.03.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.14/2017 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
```
MACA 14/17 & connected
6
## **`JUDGMENT`**
```
[MACA Nos.14/2017, 530/2017, 557/2017, 4108/2016]
```
These matters are of the year 2016-17 and have not been admitted. However, both sides are ad idem that they can be disposed of, after being formally admitted, based on the undisputed evidence on record, handed over by them across the Bar.
2. I, therefore, admit these Appeals and proceed to dispose them of finally, with the consent of both sides.
3. These Appeals emanate out of the same accident and common Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short).
4. On 10.04.2015, while Jabir V.P. and late Muhammed Fabil were riding on a motor cycle, it was collided with the offending vehicle, while trying to overtake a lorry; and they sustained injuries. Subsequently, Mohammed Fabil succumbed to the same and thereupon, his legal heirs filed OP(MV) No.1417/2015 before the afore Tribunal, seeking compensation for his death; while Sri.Jabir V.P. filed OP(MV) No.1458/2015, seeking compensation for his injuries.
MACA 14/17 & connected
7
5. Even though the claimants had sought Rs.13,80,000/- in OP(MV) No.1417/2015, it has been awarded only to a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-; while, though Sri.Jabir V.P. sought compensation of Rs.82,20,000/- only Rs.16,73,423/- has been awarded. Resultantly, claimants in OP(MV) No.1417/2015 have filed MACA No.14/2017, assailing the Award granted in their favour by the Tribunal; while Sri.Jabir V.P has filed MACA No.4108/2016, impugning the compensation awarded to him, as being inadequate.
6. While so, the Insurance Company, which insured the offending vehicle, has filed MACA Nos.530/2017 & 557/2017, impugning the Award of the Tribunal in OP(MV) Nos.1417/2015 and 1458/2015 respectively. They assert that the compensation awarded is excessive and that it has to be scaled down substantially.
7. I have heard Sri.P.Jacob Mathew, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Preethy Nair – learned Standing Counsel
for the Insurance Company and Smt.Divya A.D. - learned counsel appearing for the appellants in MACA Nos.14/2017 and 4108/2016.
8. Sri.P.Jacob Mathew – learned Senior Counsel,
MACA 14/17 & connected
8
vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation in both these cases because, even after noticing that the deceased and injured were only 18 years in age, without any verifiable income, it took their notional income to be Rs.30,000/each per annum. He argued that this is improper and hence, the compensation granted on this basis also becomes untenable. He then asserted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads in OP(MV) No.1417/2017, is impermissible, going by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others [(2021) 11 SCC 780]; while the compensation awarded in OP(MV) No.1458/2017 is excessive, particularly under the heads ‘Loss of Amenities’ and ‘Disfiguration’. He, therefore, prayed that MACA Nos.530/2017 and 557/2017 be allowed and other two Appeals be dismissed.
9. In response, Smt.Divya A.D. - learned counsel for the appellants in MACA Nos.14/2017 and 4108/2016, submitted that not merely is the notional income adopted by the Tribunal, in favour of the deceased and the injured, woefully insufficient, it is
MACA 14/17 & connected
9
also in flagrant violation of the postulations of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ramchandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236]. She contended that going by this judgment, even in the case of a person whose income is otherwise unascertainable, or who is working as a ‘Coolie’, in the year 2015 – when the accident occurred – the minimum figure to be reckoned is Rs.10,000/- per month; and that in the case of deceased, future prospects is also attracted as per National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662]. She argued that, therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires to be substantially enhanced; adding that, even under various other heads, the escalation to a reasonable extent becomes warranted, taking note of the death of the deceased and the severe injuries sustained by the injured. She thus prayed that appeals filed by her clients be allowed and those of the Insurance Company be dismissed.
10. I have considered the afore rival contentions on the touchstone of the evidence on record, which I have evaluated carefully.
MACA 14/17 & connected
10
11. I will first deal with the case of the deceased, which is covered in OP(MV) No.1417/2015.
12. The cause of accident or the death of Muhammed Fabil is not disputed. The learned Tribunal has adopted Rs.30,000/- as the annual notional income of the deceased, adverting to the fact that he was only 18 years old at the time of the accident. Though it is claimed by his legal heirs that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, working as a Part-time Industrial Worker, along with his studies, there is absolutely no evidence to establish the income of the deceased; and hence the learned Tribunal could have done nothing more than to have fixed a notional income. I cannot find fault with this, but I fail to understand why, while doing so, it reckoned only Rs.30,000/- as the annual income of the
deceased when, as rightly argued by Smt.Divya A.D.,
Ramachandrappa (supra) postulates that, in such cases, the minimum amount to be reckoned is Rs.10,000/- per month. Since
the deceased was only 18 years at the time of the accident, which
caused his unfortunate death, 40% future prospects also becomes
entitled to be added to this as per National Insurance Company
MACA 14/17 & connected
11
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662], though 1/2 of the same will have to be deducted towards personal expenses as per Sarala Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another [2010 (2) KLT 802].
13. Coming to other heads, I notice that the learned Tribunal has granted Rs.25,000/- as ‘Funeral Expenses’, but denying any amount under the head ‘Loss of Estate’. Both these are incorrect, going by Pranay Sethi (supra), since an amount equal to Rs.15,000/- becomes eligible under both heads.
14. Further, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/towards ‘Loss of Love and Affection’, along with Rs.15,000/towards ‘Pain and Suffering’ and Rs.50,000/- towards ‘Loss of Brotherly Affection and Companionship’ to the siblings of the deceased. Unfortunately, as per Satwinder Kaur (supra), these amounts could not have been granted, except an amount of Rs.80,000/- in favour of the parents, towards ‘Loss of Consortium’ as per Pranay Sethi (supra).
15. I will now deal with the case of the claimant in OP(MV) No.1458/2015.
MACA 14/17 & connected
12
16. It is again undisputed that the accident left the claimant with very serious injuries and this is undoubted because, Ext.C1-
Disability Certificate records his permanent disability to be 40%. This has been adopted by the learned Tribunal and there is no challenge to the same even by the Insurance Company in the Appeals filed by them before this Court.
17. The claimant/appellant is stated to be 19 years at the time of the accident and he claimed that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month doing Industrial work, along with pursuing his studies. As I have already said above in the case of the deceased in the other case, there is absolutely no evidence to prove that the appellant was doing Industrial Work, or that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, for the very same reasons indited above with respect to the deceased, the notional income ought to have been adopted by the Tribunal is Rs.10,000/per month.
18. That said, since the appellant has suffered 40% permanent disability, I am of the view that future prospects also becomes entitled to him as per the judgments of the Honourable
MACA 14/17 & connected
13
Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. [2014 (2) SCC 735] and Vijay Kumar Rastogi v. Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Transport Corporation [AIR 2018 SC 819] and the latest, namely Sathish E. v.
New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Others [Civil Appeal No.8059-8060/2022]. As per Pranay Sethi (supra), the prospects applicable to a person of 19 years is 40% and I propose to adopt the same.
19. Coming to other heads, the medical evidence, particularly Ext.A8-Wound Certificate, Exts.A11 to A18-Investigation Reports and Exts.A21 & A22-Discharge Summaries, reveal that the appellant sustained serious injuries and was hospitalised for 17 days. His injuries are certainly not trivial and the pain, suffering and agony suffered by him can never be understated. However, the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.40,000/- under the head ‘Pain and Suffering’ and Rs.30,000/- towards ‘Loss of Amenities’; but granting a further amount of Rs.50,000/- towards ‘Disfiguration of his thigh due to degloving injury and loss of marriage prospects’.
MACA 14/17 & connected
14
20. The learned Senior Counsel for the Insurance Company – Sri.P.Jacob Mathew, vehemently argued that no amount for marriage prospects could have been granted when ‘Pain and Suffering’ and ‘Loss of Amenities’ had been sufficiently compensated.
21. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the afore submission because, in my view, not only is the compensation offered under the heads ‘Pain and Suffering’ and ‘Loss of Amenities’ inadequate, but the grant of additional amount under the head ‘marriage prospects’ also cannot be found fault with, because the appellant’s condition is such that he is suffering from great amount of disability even at this point of time.
22. The afore being so, even though the appellant seeks larger amounts under the head ‘Extra Nourishment’ and ‘Bystander’s Expenses’, I am of the view that this Court will not be justified in granting it, because the learned Tribunal has already awarded Rs.800/- per day under the head ‘Hospitalisation’. I am certain that this will take in the afore claims also, going by the fiscal standards of the year 2015 – when the accident happened.
MACA 14/17 & connected
15
23. Finally, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘Disfiguration of thigh due to degloving injury and loss of marriage’ is retained because, even for ‘disfiguration’ alone
– which is admitted by the Insurance Company – said figure could have been granted. I do not, therefore, find any merit in the contentions of the Insurance Company in this regard, even if it is accepted, for sake of judgment, that no compensation for ‘Loss of Marriage Prospects’ could have been given.
Resultantly:
I. MACA Nos.14/2017 and 530/2017 are ordered in the following manner:
a) The compensation under the head ‘Loss of Dependency’ is enhanced to Rs.15,12,000/-, from Rs.4,05,000/- granted by the Tribunal, reckoning the notional income of the deceased to be Rs.10,000/- per month, with 40% future prospects added to it and
1/2 being deducted as personal expenses.
b) The compensation under the head ‘Funeral Expenses’ is reduced to Rs.15,000/-, from Rs.25,000/- granted by the Tribunal.
c) An additional amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded under
MACA 14/17 & connected
16
the head ‘Loss of Estate’ as per Pranay Sethi (supra).
d) Consequently, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the heads ‘Loss of Love and Affection’, ‘Pain and Suffering’ and ‘Loss of Brotherly Affection and Companionship’ are all deleted.
e) In all other heads, the findings of the Tribunal will remain unaltered.
f) Consequently, the claimants will be at liberty to recover the full compensation, as enhanced by this Court, from the Insurance Company, along with interest at the rate of 8%, (reducing it from 9% granted by the Tribunal, in view of the escalation granted by this Court), from the date of claim until it is recovered. They will also be entitled to proportionate costs on the enhanced amount, as ordered by the Tribunal.
g) In view of the afore, the amount as fixed above shall be deposited by the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
II. MACA Nos.4108/2016 & 557/2017 are ordered in the
MACA 14/17 & connected
17
following manner:
a) The compensation under the head ‘Loss of Earning Power due to Disability’ is enhanced to Rs.10,80,000/-, reckoning the notional income of the appellant to be Rs.10,000/- per month, with 25% future prospects added to it.
b) The compensation under the head ‘Pain and Suffering’ is enhanced to Rs.75,000/-, from Rs.40,000/- now granted by the Tribunal.
c) The compensation under the head ‘Loss of Amenities’ is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-, from Rs.30,000/- granted by the Tribunal. d) In all other heads, the findings of the Tribunal will remain unaltered.
e) Consequently, the appellant will be at liberty to recover the full compensation, as enhanced by this Court, from the Insurance Company, along with interest at the rate of 8%, (reducing it from 9% granted by the Tribunal, in view of the escalation granted by this Court), except under the head future treatment, from the date of claim until it is recovered. He will also be entitled to proportionate costs on the enhanced amount, as
MACA 14/17 & connected
18
ordered by the Tribunal.
f) As regards the head of ‘Future Treatment’, said amount will carry interest at the rate 8% from the date of Award of the Tribunal until it is realised.
g) In view of the afore, the amount as fixed above shall be deposited by the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
```
Sd/-
```
```
RR
```
```
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
```
```
JUDGE
```