High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-03-24The appeal is allowed in part; enhanced compens...

Manoj @ Manoj Kumar G. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 388 OF 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman, J.
Judgment Date: 2022-03-24
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed in part. The compensation is enhanced to Rs.38,800 with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The respondent Insurance company shall deposit the enhanced amount before the Tribunal within two months from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.
Final Disposition: The appeal is allowed in part; enhanced compensation of Rs.38,800 with 9% interest and proportionate costs; deposit within two months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Manoj @ Manoj Kumar G., s/o Govindan Kutty

Respondents

New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Jacob Sebastian

Counsels for Respondents

• Lal K Joseph

Case Synopsis & Summary

The appellant, Manoj @ Manoj Kumar G., sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 24 May 2011 when the Scooty (KL-9V 8884) ridden by the 2nd respondent collided with his motorcycle (KL-9U 3560). He filed OP(MV) No. 662/2012 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Rs 2,00,000 as compensation for loss of earning, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and dependence on future care. The Tribunal found the 2nd respondent negligent and awarded Rs 1,44,850 with 9% interest and costs, in part. It, however, accepted Ext.A1, a disability certificate indicating 12% whole-body disability, only to the extent of 8%; it did not refer the petitioner to a medical board to verify the disability percentage. The insurer admitted the policy but contended there was no negligence and that the amounts claimed were excessive. On appeal, the High Court held the Tribunal erred in scaling down the disability percentage without a medical board reference and treated Ext.A1 as valid evidence of 12% disability. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Sarla Verma (multiplier 15 and disability assessment), the court recomputed the Permanent disability compensation at Rs.86,400, deducting the amount already awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.57,600) to arrive at an enhanced grant of Rs.28,800. It also allowed Rs.10,000 for loss of amenities. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, awarding Rs.38,800 more, with 9% interest and costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC) — multiplier and percentage of disability framework.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal's assessment under-compensates the claimant by misreading Ext.A1 and by disregarding the 12% whole-body disability. The Medical Board's certificate (Ext.A1) should be accepted as evidence of disability; if there is any discrepancy, the proper course is to refer the claimant to a medical board. The court should apply the correct multiplier of 15 as per Sarla Verma. The Tribunal's inclusion of only partial medical expenses and the denial of future medical expenses were erroneous. The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.28,800 for permanent disability, plus Rs.10,000 for loss of amenities, totaling Rs.38,800, with 9% interest from the date of petition until realization.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurers contend that there was no negligence by the Scooty rider; the accident resulted from the claimant's own rash driving. The Tribunal's award was a reasonable assessment, and the disability certificate Ext.A1 was not produced as a Medical Board certificate. The disability percentage of 12% is not conclusively established; the Tribunal’s heads of compensation should not be increased beyond its findings. The insurer's liability should reflect the Tribunal’s award and the evidence, and a large enhancement based on a single certificate is unwarranted.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)	Positive	Used to justify applying the multiplier of 15 in calculating permanent disability 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 Manoj @ Manoj Kumar G. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 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 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN THURSDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1944 MACA NO. 388 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 662/2012 OF II ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **MANOJ @ MANOJ KUMAR G., S/O. GOVINDAN KUTTY, AGED 42 YEARS, G.M. NIVAS, THATTATHARA VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV SRI. JACOB SEBASTIAN** ## **RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:** **NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, STADIUM ROAD, KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 007.** **ADV.LAL K JOSEPH** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA NO. 388 OF 2016 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant is the claimant in OP(MV) No.662/2012 on the file of the II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. The appellant had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of a motor accident that took place on 24/5/2011. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their litigate status in the claim petition unless otherwise specifically mentioned. 2. According to the petitioner, on 24.05.2011, while he was riding motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KL-9U 3560, the Scooty bearing Reg. No KL-9V 8884 ridden by the 2[nd] respondent hit against the motorcycle and the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. He filed the claim petition claiming a total amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. 3. Respondents 1 and 3 are respectively the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle (Scooty). Respondents 1 MACA NO. 388 OF 2016 3 and 2 filed written statement before the Tribunal stating that there was no negligence on the part of the 2[nd] respondent and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the petitioner. 4. The 3[rd] respondent - insurer filed written statement admitting Ext.B1 insurance policy of the offending vehicle (Scooty); however, contended that there was no negligence on the part of the rider of the Scooty. It was also contended that the amounts claimed under various heads were excessive and disproportionate to the injuries sustained by the petitioner. 5. Neither party adduced oral evidence. The petitioner produced and marked Exts.A1 to A8 series and the 3[rd] respondent produced and marked Ext.B1 in evidence. 6. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the Scooty by the 2[nd] MACA NO. 388 OF 2016 4 respondent. The Tribunal, by the impugned award, allowed the claim petition in part permitting the petitioner to realise an amount of Rs.1,44,850/- as compensation from the respondents jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition (03/07/2012) till the date of realisation and also proportionate costs. 7. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred this appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 9. The medical board has assessed the whole body disability of the petitioner as 12%. The Doctor, who issued the disability certificate was also examined before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal held that Ext.A1 certificate was not issued by the Medical Board and scaled down the percentage of the disability to 8%. It is to be noted that, if MACA NO. 388 OF 2016 5 the Tribunal does not agree with the percentage of the disability assessed by the Doctor who was examined before the Tribunal, then the Tribunal ought to have referred the petitioner to a medical board. Without referring the petitioner to the medical board, the Tribunal cannot ignore Ext.A1 medical certificate and infer that the percentage of permanent disability of the petitioner is only 8%. The Tribunal went wrong in scaling down the percentage of disability. In the light of Ext.A1 disability certificate, the Tribunal ought to have taken the percentage of disability of the petitioner as 12%. 10. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is as follows:- |SI No|Head of claim|Amount claimed (in rupees)|Amount awarded (in rupees)|Basics – vital details in a nut shell| |---|---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earning|24,000|16,000|4,000 x 4| |2|Partial loss of earning|--|Not awarded|-| MACA NO. 388 OF 2016 6 |3|Transportation to hospital and back|2,000|2,000|Awarded| |---|---|---|---|---| |4|Damage to clothing|1,000|750|Reasonable estimate made| |5|Extra nourishment|2,000|2,000|Awarded| |6|Medical expenses|1,00,000|44,000|A8 series Medical bills Rs.43824/-| |7|Future medical expenses|1,00,000|Not awarded|| |8|Expenses of a bystander|4000|2500|IP from 24/5/2011 to 4/6/2011| |9.|Compensation for pain and suffering etc|25,000|20,000|Reasonable estimate made| |10.|Compensation for continuing or permanent disability Compensation for loss of earning power|1,00,000 1,00,000|57,600|(4,000x15x12x8/100)| |11|Compensation for loss of amenities in life|10,000||| ||Total amount claimed Rs.2,00,000/-|||| |Amount awarded is Rs.1,44,850/- with interest as shown in the reliefportion||||| 11. The petitioner contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. The petitioner MACA NO. 388 OF 2016 7 claimed an amount of Rs.4,000/- as his monthly income. The Tribunal has rightly taken the multiplier as ‘15’ **[Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010** **(2) KLT 802 (SC)].** I have already found that the disability of the petitioner has to be taken as 12%. Accordingly, the compensation for permanent disability is reassessed as Rs.86,400/-[4,000x12x15x12/100]. The Tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.57,600/- under the head compensation for permanent disability. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for an amount of **Rs.28,800/-** [Rs.86,400–57,600] as enhanced compensation under the said head. 12. For loss of amenities in life, though an amount of Rs.10,000/- was claimed by the petitioner, no amount is seen awarded by the Tribunal. Taking note of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the percentage of the disability, I find that the petitioner is entitled for an amount of **Rs.10,000/-** towards MACA NO. 388 OF 2016 8 compensation for loss of amenities in life. The said amount is awarded. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The petitioner is entitled for an amount of of **Rs.38,800/-** (28,800+10,000) as enhanced compensation with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. The respondent Insurance company shall deposit the said amount along with interest and proportionate costs before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. ## **Sd/-** **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** ska