High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-11-19Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation a...

M.A.C.A.No.1089 of 2009

Case / Petition Number:M.A.C.A.No.1089 of 2009

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. Jayachandran
Judgment Date: 2022-11-19
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed in part: income fixed at Rs.2,580 per month (based on Ext.A4 and Ramchandrappa index considerations), enhanced amounts for attendant expenses and extra-nourishment to Rs.4,000 each (ten days), a five-month loss of earning period, and loss of amenities/convenience raised to Rs.10,000. Pain and suffering remains as awarded by the Tribunal. Total enhanced compensation becomes Rs.49,901 payable jointly and severally by respondents 1 and 2, with interest on the enhanced amount at 5% from the date of petition; any already paid amount to be set off. Bank details to be provided for NEFT/RTGS transfer within two months, with payment to be completed within one month thereafter; failure to deposit will trigger interest on the enhanced amount as per Tribunal rate from the petition date.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation and payment directions issued; insurer liability remains restricted to statutory policy; mathematical calculations adjusted; bank transfer directions provided; 5% interest on enhanced amount from date of petition.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M.C. Joseph

Respondents

Sushama W/o Joseph, Assistant Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Kochi-18
Raju S/o Sivadasan, Malamel Parambil House, Vazhakkala Thoppil, Thrikkakara
The United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Manager, Branch Office, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Anil S. Raj

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri S. Arun Raj (Standing Counsel)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a motor accident claim appeal filed by the claimant (M.C. Joseph) challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam’s award in O.P.(MV) No.1741/2001 dated 19 October 2007. The Tribunal held the insurer liable only as per a statutory/Act-only policy, exonerating it from compensation; owners and driver of the motorcycle were held responsible and the respondents 1 and 2 were ex parte in the appeal. The appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in income assessment and heads of compensation. Invoking Ramchandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd, the appellant argues that 2001 income should be higher; Ext.A4 shows a salary of Rs.2,580 per month, and the court accepts this figure, noting that the income under the Ramchandrappa index for 2001 could be Rs.3,000, but adopts Rs.2,580 as reasonable. The court upholds that the goal is just and reasonable compensation, not pleadings niceties, but declines enhancement for pain and suffering beyond the Tribunal’s award. It enhances attendant expenses and extra nourishment from Rs.2,000 to Rs.4,000 each for ten days, extends loss of earning to five months, and increases loss of amenities and convenience to Rs.10,000. The total becomes Rs.49,901, with joint and several liability on the owner and driver, and 5% interest on the enhanced amount from the petition date; payment via NEFT/RTGS is directed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Just and reasonable compensation
Niceties of pleadings would not stand in the way of a summary proceeding in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act (emphasis on 'just and reasonable' compensation)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in income assessment, relying on Ext.A4 showing Rs.2,580 per month and invoking Ramchandrappa (2011 KHC 4675) to suggest that the 2001 income could be Rs.3,000 per month. He submits that the income should be harmonized to Rs.2,580 (as per Ext.A4) for the purpose of calculating just compensation, and seeks enhancement in heads including attendant expenses, extra nourishment, loss of earning (extending the period to five months due to prolonged treatment), and loss of amenities/convenience (claimed amount to be increased), while arguing that pain and suffering should be adjusted within reason. The aim is to secure a just and reasonable award under the MV Act, with liability on the owner and driver and against the insurer only for the statutory policy as per the Tribunal’s finding.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents did not appear and there were no submissions from the insurer or the owner/driver; hence no substantive counter-arguments were placed in the appeal.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramchandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd	2011 KHC 4675	Positive	The court relies on the Ramchandrappa index to determine the income for the year 2001 and uses it to justify the income of Rs.2,580 per month (Ext.A4) for calculation of compensation.

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.1089 of 2009 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 C. JAYACHANDRAN** **SATURDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/28TH KARTHIKA, 1944 MACA NO. 1089 OF 2009** **OP(MV)1741/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,** **ERNAKULAM DTD.19.10.2007** **I.A.No.2609/2008 in OP(MV)1741/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM DTD.03.06.2008** **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** M.C.JOSEPH AGED 50 YEARS S/O CHACKO @ PAPPY MUTHUMARATH HOUSE, KOLLAMKUDIMUGAL COLONY, THRIKKAKARA.PO,KAKKANAD. BY ADV SRI.ANIL S.RAJ ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** 1 V.S.SUSHAMA W/O JOSEPH ASSISTANT MANAGER, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,KALOOR,KOCHI-18. 2 RAJU, S/O.SIVADASAN, MALAMEL PARAMBIL HOUSE, VAZHAKKALA THOPPIL,THRIKKAKARA.PO. 3 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,BRANCH OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. R3 BY SRI.S.ARUN RAJ – STANDING COUNSEL THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M..A.C.A.No.1089 of 2009 ..2.. ## **C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.** -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.1089 of 2009 -----------------------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of November, 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** This appeal is preferred by the claimant who suffered injuries in an accident on 11.2.2001, while he was travelling as a pillion in a motorcycle. The award under challenge is the one dated 19.10.2007 in O.P.(MV)No.1741/2001, along with a connected O.P.(MV), of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. **2.** Heard Sri.Anil S.Raj, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Arun Raj, learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent/insurance company. Perused the records. **3.** This Court straight away notices that this is a case in which the insurance company has been exonerated from paying the compensation amount, for the reason that the policy in question is only a Statutory/Act only policy. The liability has been fastened on respondents 1 and 2 by the Tribunal, namely, the owner and driver respectively of the M..A.C.A.No.1089 of 2009 ..3.. motorcycle. Respondents 1 and 2 before the Tribunal were ex-parte as could be seen from paragraph no.3 of the impugned award. In this appeal also, though respondents 1 and 2 were served, there is no representation for them. **4.** Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the petitioner's income was reckoned by the Tribunal only at Rs.2,000/-, whereas the salary certificate produced by the petitioner indicates an income of Rs.2,580/-. The learned counsel pointed out that, going by a graded deduction made from the index available in **Ramchandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited** [2011 KHC 4675], it could reasonably be taken that the income for the year 2001 is Rs.3,000/- per month. In the circumstances, the income shown in Ext.A4 at least may be taken, is the submission. The learned counsel also fairly submitted that the income claimed in the claim petition is only Rs.2,000/-. **5.** Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the view that the income specified in Ext.A4 can be M..A.C.A.No.1089 of 2009 **==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** reckoned, i.e., to say Rs.2,580/- per month. It is true that the income claimed in the claim petition is Rs.2,000/-. However, the niceties of pleadings would not stand in the way of a summary proceeding in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasis being laid is on 'just and reasonable' compensation. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the income, which could be deduced from the index available in **Ramchandrappa** (supra) pertaining to the year 2001 is Rs.3,000/-. Therefore, it would be logical and reasonable to reckon the income at Rs.2,580/- as indicated in Ext.A4 salary certificate. It is so ordered. Although learned counsel submitted that the amount granted under the head 'pain and suffering' is on the lower side, this Court is not in a position to endorse the same. A sum of Rs.14,000/- has already been granted by the Tribunal. Having regard to the injuries sustained by the claimant, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation granted under the head 'pain and suffering' is sufficient. Hence, the claim under that head is rejected. M..A.C.A.No.1089 of 2009 ..5.. **6.** Another claim raised by the learned counsel is with respect to the attendant expenses and extra-nourishment. Combining the two heads, the Tribunal granted only Rs.2,000/-. This Court is of the opinion that enhancement under the said two heads can be granted. The claimant was treated as an inpatient for a period of ten days, wherefore, the attendant expenses and expenses for extra-nourishment can be reckoned at the rate of Rs.200/- each, for a period of ten days. Accordingly, Rs.2,000/- each under both heads are to be reckoned. It is so ordered. **7.** Another point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is with respect to the loss of earning, where the Tribunal has reckoned only three months. It was pointed out that although the accident took place on 2001, the treatment had to be continued till 2004, as is evidenced from Exts.A4 to A8. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a period of five months can be reckoned towards the period of loss of earning. M..A.C.A.No.1089 of 2009 ..6.. **8.** Finally, learned counsel seeks enhancement under the head 'loss of amenities and convenience', where the Tribunal had reckoned only Rs.3,000/-. Although no disability has been assessed, the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant is substantial, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, wherefore, reasonable enhancement has to be given under the said head. Having regard to the injuries sustained, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation amount granted under the head loss of amenities and convenience can be enhanced to Rs.10,000/from Rs.3,000/- granted by the Tribunal. **9.** In the result, this M.A.C.A. is allowed and compensation amount payable to the appellant is re-worked as indicated in the table hereinbelow: |**Sl.No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount** **awarded by the** **Tribunal** **(Rs.)**|**Total** **amount** **after** **enhanceme** **nt in appeal** **(Rs.)**| |---|---|---|---| |1|Medical expenses (supported by bills)|7,151|7,151| |2|Transportation and damage to clothes|500|500| ## M..A.C.A.No.1089 of 2009 ..7.. |3|Attendant expenses & Extra- nourishment|2,000|4,000| |---|---|---|---| |4|Shock, pain and sufferings|14,000|14,000| |5|Loss of earning|6,000|14,250 (2,580x5)| |6|Loss of amenities and convenience|3,000|10,000| ||Total|32,651|49,901| |Amount enhanced = Rs.17,250/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand two hundred and fifty only)|||| **10.** Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and driver respectively, shall pay the compensation amount fixed above, their liability being joint and several. They shall also pay interest for the amounts awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award, and for the enhanced amount, at the rate of 5% from the date of petition. If any amount has already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. **11.** The claimant shall produce the details of the Bank account before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal concerned, with intimation to the respondents 1 and 2 herein within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Respondents 1 and 2 shall transfer the compensation amount to the Bank account directly through M..A.C.A.No.1089 of 2009 **==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** NEFT/RTGS mode, within a period of one month thereafter. If respondents 1 and 2 fail to deposit the amount, as directed, interest on the enhanced amount shall also run at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of petition. The appeal is allowed to extent indicated above. Sd/- ## **C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE** skj