Manoj A.J. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.388 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 439/2017 DATED 19-07-2018 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA** ## **APPELLANT:** **MANOJ A.J. AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. JOSE, ALACKAL HOUSE, THARUVANA POST, PORUNNANNORE, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH** ## **RESPONDENT:** **THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. PINANGODE ROAD JUNCTION, MAIN ROAD, KALPETTA 673 121.** **BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMAR BY ADV. SMT.T.M.BINITHA** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** M.A.C.A.No.388 of 2019 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant is the claimant in O.P(MV)No.439 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, Wayanad, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident, which occurred on 13.08.2017, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-72/5975. At the place of accident, the said motorcycle was hit by another motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-42/C-5247, ridden by the 1[st] respondent, and owned by the 2[nd] respondent before the Tribunal and insured with the respondent herein. In the accident, the appellant/claimant sustained injuries. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending motorcycle by its rider, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.7,71,600/- under various heads, which was limited to Rs.3,00,000/- for the purpose of payment of Court Fee. 2. Before the Tribunal, the rider and owner of the offending vehicle remained absent and they were set ex-parte. M.A.C.A.No.388 of 2019 3 The 3[rd] respondent insurer filed written statement admitting the insurance coverage of the said vehicle involved in the accident; however, denying the negligence alleged against its rider. The age, occupation, monthly income, etc. stated in the claim petition were denied and it was contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive. 3. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant. Both sides have not chosen to adduce any oral evidence. 4. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending motorcycle by its rider. Since insurance coverage of the said vehicle was not in dispute, the insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,07,600/-, together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition, i.e., 02.11.2017, till date of deposit, with proportionate cost and the insurer was directed to satisfy the award. 5. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation M.A.C.A.No.388 of 2019 4 awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant is before this Court in this appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ claimant and also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer. 7. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads. 8. In **State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur [(2003) 7 SCC 484]** the Apex Court held that the Tribunal under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense 'damages' which in turn appears to it to be 'just and reasonable'. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has be to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be 'just' and it cannot be a bonanza; not a M.A.C.A.No.388 of 2019 5 source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. 9. In **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the concept of 'just compensation' and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability. 10. In the instant case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads reads thus; ||The<br>compensation<br>claimed under various<br>heads|Amount<br>claimed|Amount<br>allowed|Basis/vital<br>details in a<br>nutshell| |---|---|---|---|---| ||Income/notional<br>income|Rs.800/- day|Rs.8,000/-|| |1|Loss of earning (total)|Rs.2,49,600/-|Rs.8,000/-|8000x1<br>month| |2|Transport to hospital|Rs.5,000/-|Rs.1,000/-|| M.A.C.A.No.388 of 2019 6 |3|Extra nourishment|Rs.25,000/-|Rs.250/-|250 x 1 day| |---|---|---|---|---| |4|Damage to clothing|Rs.2,000/-|Rs.1,000/-|| |5|Medicine and treatment|Rs.1,00,000/-|Rs.2,500/-|| |6|Bystanders expenses|Rs.15,000/-|Rs.250/-|250 x 1 day| |7|Pain and suffering|Rs.25,000/-|Rs.15,000/-|| |8|Physical and mental<br>shock|Rs.25,000/-|Nil|| |9|Loss of expectation of<br>life|Rs.25,000/-|Nil|| |10|Loss of amenities|Rs.25,000/-|Rs.22,000/-|| |11|Inconvenience,<br>hardship, discomfort,<br>disappointment,<br>frustration and mental<br>stress in life|Rs.25,000/-|Nil|| |12|Compensation<br>for<br>partial<br>permanent<br>disability|Rs.1,50,000/-|Nil|| |13|Compensation for loss<br>of earning power|Rs.50,000/-|Rs.57,600/-|8000 x 12 x<br>15 x 4/100| |14|Compensation<br>for<br>future treatment|Rs.50,000/-|Nil|| ||Total|Rs.7,71,600/-<br>claim limited<br>to Rs.3 lakhs.|Rs.1,07,600/-|Petitioner is<br>entitled to get<br>Rs.1,07,600/-<br>with interest<br>@ 8% per<br>annum from<br>the date of<br>petition, i.e.,<br>from<br>02.11.2017<br>till date of<br>realisation.| 11. The accident occurred on 13.08.2017. At the time of accident, the appellant was aged 40 years. The appellant claimed a daily wage of Rs.800/- as painter. The appellant has M.A.C.A.No.388 of 2019 7 also not chosen to mount the box to prove the monthly income. In the absence of any reliable materials, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income notionally as Rs.8,000/-, for the purpose of assessing compensation under various heads. 12. In **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011)** **13 SCC 236]** the Apex Court reckoned the monthly income of a coolie (manual labourer), who met with a road accident in the year 2004, at the age of 35 years, notionally as Rs.4,500/-. The Apex Court held that, the claimant who was working as a coolie cannot be expected to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in the facts of the said case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant. The Apex Court made it clear that, in all cases and in all circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant, in the absence of supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible M.A.C.A.No.388 of 2019 8 income by resorting to some guess work, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time. 13. In **Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2014) 2 SCC 735]** , taking note of the earlier decision in **Ramachandrappa's case (supra)** , the Apex Court reckoned the monthly income of a vegetable vendor, who met with a road accident in the year 2008, at the age of 24 years, notionally as Rs.6,500/-. In the said decision, the Apex Court held that, a labourer in an unorganised sector doing his own business cannot be expected to produce documents to prove his monthly income. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal and the High Court to ask for evidence to prove his monthly income. Going by the state of economy prevailing at that time and the rising prices in agricultural products, the Apex Court accepted his case that a vegetable vendor is reasonably capable of earning 6,500/- per month. 14. In the absence of any reliable evidence, considering the economic conditions prevailing at the time of accident, i.e., during the year 2017, and taking note of the fixation of notional monthly income by the Apex Court in the decisions M.A.C.A.No.388 of 2019 9 referred to supra, this Court deem it appropriate to re-fix the monthly income of the appellant notionally as Rs.11,000/-, for the purpose of assessing compensation under various heads. 15. The document marked as Ext.A5 is the wound certificate. The injuries sustained by the appellant, as borne out from Ext.A5, are lacerated wound between right 2[nd] and 3[rd] toes extending 4x3 cm; lacerated wound over right 4[th] and 5[th] toes 3x1cm; lacerated wound over left foot, 1cm below great toe 1x1cm; abrasion over shoulder 5x4cm; abrasion over palm 3x2cm; abrasion over thumb 2x1cm; and X-ray foot of 2[nd] pronimal phelegues of right foot. The appellant had undergone only outpatient treatment. Considering the nature of injuries, the Tribunal took the percentage of permanent disability as 4%, for the purpose of awarding disability compensation. 16. Towards loss of earning, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/-, at the rate of Rs.8,000/- for a period of one month. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the period of one month fixed by the Tribunal for granting loss of earning is re-fixed as 2 months. Since the M.A.C.A.No.388 of 2019 10 monthly income of the appellant is re-fixed notionally as Rs.11,000/-, the compensation under the head loss of earning is re-fixed as Rs.22,000/- (11,000 x 2), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.14,000/-** . (22,000 - 8,000) 17. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant had undergone only outpatient treatment. Towards transportation to hospital, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head represents just and reasonable compensation, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. 18. Towards bystander expenses the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.250/- (250 x 1). Towards extra nourishment, the Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs.250/- (250 x 1). The accident is of the year 2017 and the appellant had undergone only outpatient treatment. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under these heads also represents just and reasonable compensation, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. 19. Towards damage to clothing, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/-. Considering the fact that the accident is of the year 2017, the compensation under this head is re-fixed M.A.C.A.No.388 of 2019 11 as Rs.1,500/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.500/-** (1,500 - 1,000) 20. Towards medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/-. In the absence of any medical bills, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head represents just and reasonable compensation, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. 21. As compensation towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head cannot be said to be on the lower side. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for any enhancement under this head. 22. In **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121]** , the Apex Court, after referring to its earlier decisions in **Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176]** , **U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362]** and **New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.** M.A.C.A.No.388 of 2019 12 **Charlie [(2005) 10 SCC 720]** held that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table in paragraph 40 of the said decision [prepared by applying **Susamma Thomas** , **Trilok Chandra** and **Charlie** ], which starts with an operative multiplier of **18** [for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years], reduced by one unit for every five years, i.e., multiplier of **17** for 26 to 30 years, multiplier of **16** for 31 to 35 years, multiplier of **15** for 36 to 40 years, multiplier of **14** for 41 to 45 years, and multiplier of **13** for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, i.e., multiplier of **11** for 51 to 55 years, multiplier of **9** for 56 to 60 years, multiplier of **7** for 61 to 65 years and multiplier of **5** for 66 to 70 years. ## 23. In **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay** **Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, as far as the multiplier is concerned, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in paragraph 19 of **Sarla Verma** , read with paragraph 42 of the said judgment. 24. In the instant case, as on the date of accident, the appellant was aged 40 years. In the light of the decisions of M.A.C.A.No.388 of 2019 13 the Apex Court in **Sarla Verma's case** and **Pranay Sethi's case** referred to supra, the multiplier of **15** applied by the Tribunal is correct and proper. 25. Towards compensation for permanent disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.57,600/- (8,000 x 12 x 15 x 4/100). Since the monthly income of the appellant is re-fixed notionally as Rs.11,000/-, applying the multiplier of 15 applicable to the age group of the appellant and the percentage of permanent disability as 4%, as fixed by the Tribunal, for the purpose of assessing disability compensation, the compensation under the head permanent disability is refixed as Rs.79,200/- (11,000 x 12 x 15 x 4/100), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.21,600/-** (79,200 - 57,600). 26. Towards loss of amenities the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.22,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head is on the higher side, in the absence of a disability certificate. Therefore, the compensation under this head is scaled down to Rs.5,000, resulting an **excess payment** of **Rs.17,000/-** (22,000 - 5,000). M.A.C.A.No.388 of 2019 14 27. In the result, the appellant will be entitled for payment of an additional compensation of **Rs.19,100/-** (Rupees Nineteen Thousand One Hundred only) [(14,000 + 500 + 21,600) - 17,000] in this appeal, which will carry interest at the rate of **8%** per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The respondent/insurer shall satisfy the additional compensation granted in this appeal, together with interest, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after deducting the liability, if any, of the appellant/claimant towards Balance Court Fee and Legal Benefit Fund. The disbursement of the amount to the appellant/claimant shall be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06.09.2019 and clarified further in Official Memorandum No.D1-62475/2016 dated 07.11.2019. This appeal is disposed of as above. No order as to costs. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN** **JUDGE** yd