High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2018-11-16MACA 1810 of 2009 allowed; MACA 1942 of 2014 re...

MACA Nos.1810 of 2009 & 1942 of 2014, P.V. Madhu v. Justin P.L. and Ravindran and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (High Court of Kerala)

Case / Petition Number:MACA Nos.1810 of 2009 & 1942 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2018-11-16
Court Decision / Holding: MACA No.1810 of 2009 is allowed with enhanced compensation as per Pranay Sethi guidelines; there is no order as to costs. MACA No.1942 of 2014 is remanded with conditions: deposit of Rs.46,600 with interest at 7% is required, the Tribunal to restore the petition for consideration of liability to the actual registered owner upon proof of transfer, and the insurer remains absolved unless transfer is proven.
Final Disposition: MACA 1810 of 2009 allowed; MACA 1942 of 2014 remanded with conditions for determining liability on the actual owner; insurer absolved unless transfer proven.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P.V. Madhu
Justin P.L.

Respondents

Justin P.L.
Ravindran
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V. Binoy Ram
• P.G. Suresh
• G. Sudheer (Thuravoor)
• Rajan Vishnura
• V. Harish

Counsels for Respondents

• V. Harish
• A.R. George
• G. Sudheer (Thuravoor)
• P.G. Suresh
• Rajan Vishnura
• Smt. K. S. Santhi
• V.P.K. Panicker
• V. Binoy Ram

Case Synopsis & Summary

These MACA appeals arise from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, in OPMV No.1118/2004 dated 21-11-2008. The accident occurred on 07.03.2004 at about 9 p.m., involving two motorcycles; the injured, P.V. Madhu, sustained cerebral concussion, a frontal bone fracture, lip lacerations and a right-foot wound. The Tribunal held negligence against the other rider and, on the basis of registration details, held the registered owner liable, since evidence of transfer of registration was not proved. The claimant sought enhanced compensation, relying on Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd to justify a monthly income of Rs.4,500 in 2004, and on the Supreme Court’s Pranay Sethi guidelines (2017) for enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal awarded Rs.32,600 in total; the High Court, applying Pranay Sethi’s heads, increased several items to a total of Rs.46,600. The 2nd appeal (MACA No.1942/2014) by the owner contends transfer of vehicle, seeks remand to adjudicate liability on the actual owner, and argues insurer should be absolved if transfer is shown. The Court allowed the claimant’s appeal, directed deposit of Rs.46,600 with interest, and remanded MACA No.1942/2014 to determine liability on the true owner, keeping insurer absolved unless transfer is proved. Overall, the judgment resolves enhanced compensation and the transfer-based liability dispute.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

In MACA 1810/2009, the appellant contends that the Tribunal’s compensation is inadequate and must be enhanced in line with the Supreme Court’s Pranay Sethi principles and Ramachandrappa, particularly to fix a realistic monthly income (Rs. 4,500 in 2004) for the injured. The claimant also seeks inclusion of heads such as medical expenses, loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, with proper computation under Pranay Sethi. In MACA 1942/2014, the appellant-owner argues that the vehicle was transferred and that liability should be shifted to the actual owner, and pleads remand to adjudicate the true ownership and liability; insurer liability, if any, should be discharged once transfer is established.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents counter that the registered owner remains liable absent proof of transfer; they contend the Tribunal misapplied transfer evidence and that remand is unnecessary. They maintain that the insurer’s liability stands unless transfer is proven, and emphasise that the vehicle’s registration details were not adequately disproved. In MACA 1942/2014, they argue that if transfer is established, liability should shift to the transferee; the insurer should be absolved in the absence of transfer; the court should not automatically remand without conditions.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	[(2011) 13 SCC 236]	Positive	Cited as the basis for fixing the claimant’s monthly income (Rs. 4,500 in 2004) in line with Supreme Court precedent.
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others	[2017 (5) KHC 350]	Positive	Applied the Pranay Sethi guidelines for enhancement of compensation heads (medical, pain, earnings, etc.).

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 Nos.1810 of 2009 & 1942 of 2014, P.V. Madhu v. Justin P.L. and Ravindran and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (High Court of Kerala) 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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1940** ## **MACA. No.1810 of 2009** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV NO.1118/2004 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 21-11-2008** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **MR.P.V.MADHU, PALAKKAL HOUSE, EDASSERY DESOM, P.O., THALIKULAM VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, C/O.KOLLARA HOUSE, EDATHIRUTHY DESOM, VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.** **BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**MR. JUSTIN.P.L., PALIAKKARA HOUSE, PALAKKATTUKARA,**| |---|---| ||**THRISSUR DISTRICT.**| |**2**|**MR.RAVINDRAN, S/O.CHATHUKUTTY, CHAKKAMBY HOUSE,**| ||**NADUVILKKARA P.O., VADANAPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.**| |**3**|**THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.**| ||**MANAPATT BUILDING, NORTH NADA, KODUNGALLUR.**| **BY ADVS. SRI.V.HARISH SRI.A.R.GEORGE SRI.G.SUDHEER (THURAVOOR) SRI.P.G.SURESH SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ SMT.K S SANTHI SRI.V.P.K. PANICKER, SC** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.11.2018, ALONG WITH MACA NO.1942/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1940** ## **MACA. No.1942 of 2014** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV NO.1118/2004 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 21-11-2008** ## **APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:** **JUSTIN P.L., AGED 42 YEARS S/O. LONA, PALIAKKARA HOUSE, P.O.CHITTISSERY, NENMANIKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. (THE ALLEGED REGISTERED OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE).** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.G.SURESH SRI.G.SUDHEER (THURAVOOR) SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ SRI.V.HARISH** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 RAVINDRAN S/O. CHATHUKUTTY, CHAKKAMBY HOUSE, P.O.NADUVILKKARA, VADANAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001. (DRIVER OF MOTOR CYCLE KL-08/E 1728).** **2 THE MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MENEPATTU BUILDINGS, NORTH NADA, KODUNGALLOOR P.O., KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 006. (INSURER OF MOTOR CYCLE KL-08/E 1728).** **3 P.V.MADHU, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. VELUKUTTY, PALAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.EDASSERY, EDASSERY DESOM, THALIKKULAM VILLAGE, C/O. KOLLARA HOUSE, EDATHURUTHY DESOM, EDATHURUTHY VILLAGE, P.O.EDATHURUTHY, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 006. (INJURED).** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.BINOY RAM SRI.VPK.PANICKER, SC** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.11.2018, ALONG WITH MACA NO.1810/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** M.A.C.A. Nos.1810 of 2009 & 3 1942 of 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** **The appeals are filed by the registered owner of the offending vehicle and the injured claimant. M.A.C.A. No.1810 of 2009** **2. The accident occurred on 07.03.2004 at about 9pm. The injured, who is the appellant in this appeal, was traveling in a motor cycle, when another motor cycle coming from the opposite side driven rashly and negligently, hit on the appellant's motor cycle. The appellant suffered grievous injuries in the accident. Negligence was found on the other motor cycle, which was covered by a valid insurance policy. The 1[st] respondent before the Tribunal was alleged to be the owner of the vehicle. Notice was issued to the owner and the 1[st] respondent filed written statement contending that he had sold the motor cycle bearing Registration No.KL-8/E 1728 to one Jose as early as on 10.10.1998 and that the said Jose had** M.A.C.A. Nos.1810 of 2009 & 4 1942 of 2014 **later sold the vehicle to one Shanmukhan. The 3[rd] respondent insurer accepted insurance coverage of the motor cycle. The 2[nd] respondent, who was driving the offending vehicle, did not have a valid driving licence. Hence there was a liability mulcted on the registered owner of the vehicle, the 1[st] respondent. The insurance policy was in the name of the 1[st] respondent itself. The 1[st] respondent, who was impleaded before the Tribunal, did not produce anything to show that there was a transfer of registration. Hence the liability was mulcted on the 1[st] respondent. In the appeal of the claimant, we are only concerned with the claim of enhancement of compensation.** **3. The claimant/appellant was subject to inpatient treatment for four days and was diagnosed with cerebral concussion and fracture of the frontal bone. There were also lacerated wounds over his upper lip and lower lip as also a wound** M.A.C.A. Nos.1810 of 2009 & 5 1942 of 2014 **on the right foot. The appellant claimed to be a salesman in a flower-shop at Thrissur and asserted a monthly income of Rs.4,500/-. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had found Rs.4,500/- as the monthly income of a coolie in the year 2004 in** _**Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236].**_ **Considering the said finding the claim of the appellant can be accepted.** **4. The following enhancement shall be made on the various heads as has been declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in** _**National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others [2017 (5) KHC 350]**_ **as tabulated below:** |**Sl.** **No.**|**Head of claim**|**Amount** **awarded by** **the Tribunal** `|**Total amount** **after** **enhancement in** **appeal** `| |---|---|---|---| |**1**|**Medical expenses**|**11700**|**11700**| |**2**|**Bystander's expenses**|**400**|**400**| |**3**|**Transportation** **expenses**|**500**|**500**| 6 M.A.C.A. Nos.1810 of 2009 & 1942 of 2014 |**4**|**Loss of earning**|**4000**|**9000**| |---|---|---|---| |**5**|**Pain and suffering**|**12000**|**20000**| |**6**|**Loss of amenities**|**4000**|**5000**| ||**Total**|**32600**|**46600**| **This appeal is allowed. There is no order as** **to costs in the appeal.** **M.A.C.A. No.1942 of 2014** **5. This appeal is filed by the 1[st] respondent before the Tribunal. The 1[st] respondent's contention is that the vehicle was transferred by the 1[st] respondent, to prove which the registration details have been produced as Ext.A1. The 1[st] respondent is a person, who appeared before the Tribunal and raised a contention that there was a transfer of registration of vehicle. In fact the specific contention was that the appellant sold the vehicle to Jose who sold the same to one Shanmukhan. It was the duty of the appellant to prove before Court that the vehicle was already transferred to one another. If that had been done,** M.A.C.A. Nos.1810 of 2009 & 7 1942 of 2014 **the Tribunal would have definitely impleaded the other person and issued notice against him. Having not done that, the appellant had filed the above appeal itself with delay of more than 1972 days. The learned Counsel for the appellant seeks for a remand of the matter. However, since the insurer has been absolved of the liability, the injured has not got the money till now. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to remand the matter without any conditions.** **6. In such circumstances, the appellant shall deposit the amounts awarded by this Court, ie. Rs.46,600/-, with interest @ 7% from the date of application and cost, if any, ordered by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal. If the amountS are so deposited, the Tribunal shall restore the claim petition to its files, but only for consideration of the liability to be fixed on another. The claimant need not be heard at all. The claimant** M.A.C.A. Nos.1810 of 2009 & 8 1942 of 2014 **has to be permitted withdrawal of the amounts deposited by the appellant. Then the appellant shall file an impleading petition with the proper address of Shanmukhan M.K., who is stated to be the registered owner at the time of the accident. The appellant shall also prove the fact of transfer of vehicle, in which event the liability shall be transferred to the actual registered owner, who definitely cannot be indemnified for reason of the insurance policy being in the name of the appellant herein. However, the appellant shall also be entitled to recover the amounts now deposited from the actual registered owner if the factum of transfer is proved before the Tribunal. In so recovering the amounts, the appellant shall not be entitled to recover the interest for 1972 days.** **On conditions M.A.C.A. No.1942 of 2014 is remanded. It is made clear that on restoration of** M.A.C.A. Nos.1810 of 2009 & 9 1942 of 2014 **the claim, the Tribunal is only called upon, to decide on the liability; as to whether it is to be on the 1[st] respondent or on another person who has to be proved to be the actual registered owner. The insurance Company in any event is absolved from the liability.** **Sd/-** **K. VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE** **sp/21/11/18** //True Copy// P.A. To Judge