M.K. Maniyamma v. C.K. Babu, Sajeeshkumar, and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: R. Basant
M.C. Hari Rani
Judgment Date: 2011-10-20
Court Decision / Holding: Appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.69,800 (in addition to the Tribunal’s award); Appeal allowed in part; Entire amount to carry interest at the rate and for the period directed by the Tribunal; Proportionate costs to be paid as per Jeena ( supra ); All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld.
Final Disposition: Partly allowed: enhanced compensation with Rs.69,800 additional amount; interest and costs as directed; other tribunal directions upheld.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M.K. Maniyamma

Respondents

C.K. Babu
Sajeeshkumar
Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co Ltd

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V.G. Arun
• T.R. Harikumar

Counsels for Respondents

• P.V. Jyothi Prasad
• George Cherian

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court heard MACA No.1491 of 2011 in a motor accident claims appeal arising from an accident on 10 August 2003, which left the claimant, a 61-year-old homemaker, with loss of vision in the right eye and a five-day hospital stay. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Mavelikkara awarded Rs 50,550 against a claim of Rs 1.90 lakh, distributing sums for medical and miscellaneous expenses, transportation, nourishment, clothing, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, while noting a separate component for permanent disability and loss of earning power. The appellant challenged the quantum, arguing that the monetary value of services rendered by a homemaker must be higher (citing Lata Wadhwa) and that the injury caused a two-month period of inability to perform normal chores, warranting higher compensation for loss of services, more substantial pain and suffering, and a greater award for permanent disability. The court agreed, upholding the use of the multiplier-multiplicand method, applying a 7× multiplier, and concluded that the disability certificate shows 30% physical disability. It recalculated compensation, adding Rs 69,800 to the Tribunal's award for loss of services during two months, enhanced pain and suffering to Rs 5,000, and awarded Rs 58,800 as additional permanent disability, while directing the entire award to carry interest and applying proportionate costs as per Jeena. The appeal is allowed in part.

Provisions of Law Cited

Employees' Compensation Act, Entry 26, Part 2, Schedule 1

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Multiplier-multiplicand method

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the monetary equivalent of homemaker services should be Rs 3,000 per mensum (citing Lata Wadhwa). The injury justifies two months of inability to perform normal chores, justifying loss of services; pain and suffering should be increased (from Rs 10,000 to Rs 15,000); the permanent disability, assessed at 30% with a 7× multiplier, warrants higher compensation; based on Rs 3,000 monthly income, the calculation under the multiplier-multiplicand method supports enhanced relief; costs should follow Jeena ( supra ) for proportionate costs.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the tribunal's quantum is adequate and the award should stand; liability rests with the insurer as per policy; the evidence for larger sums is lacking and the court should not disturb the tribunal's assessment beyond contesting specific heads.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Lata Wadhwa and Others v. State of Bihar and Others	2001 SC 3218	Positive	Court relied on this decision to determine the monetary value of homemaker services (Rs 3,000 per mensum) in calculating compensation.
Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K	2011(3) KLT 943	Positive	Proportionate costs before the tribunal to be calculated as per Jeena (Supra).

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 1491 of 2011() ----------------------OPMV.1871/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA .................... ## APPELLANT/PETITIONER -------------- M.K.MANIYAMMA, W/O.LATE M.V.ACHUTHAN, MALANIKUNNATHIL,AREEKARA, MULAKUZHA,CHENGANNUR,MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. C.K.BABU,CHARIYARAKUZHI,VAZHOOR, CHANGANACHERRY,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 101. 2. SAJEESHKUMAR, MALANILKUNNATHIL,AREEKARA, MULAKUZHA,CHENGANNUR, MAVELIKKARA 689 505. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO-LTD, THIRUVALLA 689 645. ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD FOR R3 SC ADV.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * *** M.A.C.A.No.1491 of 2011 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of October 2011 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **R.BASANT,J** Claimant is the appellant. She, a 61 year old woman, claimed compensation for the personal injuries suffered by her in a motor accident which took place on 10/08/2003. She had suffered injury to the right eye. According to her, there was loss of vision of the right eye. She was an in-patient for a period of five days. She was a home maker. Against a total claim of Rs.1,90,000/-, the tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.50,550/as per the details given in paragraph 9 of the impugned award which we extract below: |which|we extract below:|||| |---|---|---|---|---| |**_Sl.No._**|**_Head of claim_**|**_Amount_** **_claimed (in_** **_Rupees)_**|**_Amount_** **_awarded (in_** **_Rupees)_**|**_Basis vita_** **_details in a_** **_nut shell_**| |1.|Loss of earnings (Total)|--|--|| |2.|Medical and miscellaneous expenses|20,000/-|10,000/-|| |3.|Bystander expenses|1,000/-|500/-|| |4.|Transportation expenses|10,000/-|1,500/-|| |5.|Extra nourishment|3,000/-|1,500/-|| |6.|Damage to clothing, etc.|1,000/-|250/-|| |7.|pain and suffering|35,000/-|10,000/-|| |8.|Loss of amenities|10,000/-|10,000/-|| 2 M.A.C.A.No.1491 of 2011 |**_Sl.No._**|**_Head of claim_**|**_Amount_** **_claimed (in_** **_Rupees)_**|**_Amount_** **_awarded (in_** **_Rupees)_**|**_Basis vita_** **_details in a_** **_nut shell_**| |---|---|---|---|---| |9.|Permanent disability|75,000/-|16,800/-|| |10.|Any other heads Loss of earning power|25,000/-|Nil|No evidence| |11|Total|**1,90,000/-**|**50,550/-**|| 2. Arguments have been advanced. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. The insurance company/3[rd] respondent has been made entirely liable under the impugned award. Challenge is raised against the impugned award on the short ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is not adequate. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the monetary equivalent of the services rendered by the appellant as a home maker has been assessed at a painfully low figure of Rs.2,000/per mensum. Going by the decision in **Lata Wadhwa and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [2001 SC 3218]** atleast Rs.3,000/- per mensum must have been reckoned as the monetary equivalent of the services on the date of the accident i.e. 10/08/2003, contends counsel. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant on that aspect. We are further satisfied 3 M.A.C.A.No.1491 of 2011 that the injury suffered must have rendered the appellant involuntarily unable to pursue her normal chores for a period of two months. She is entitled for compensation for loss of services for such period. 4. The learned counsel then contends that considering the nature of the injury, i.e. rupture of the right eye, the compensation for pain and suffering awarded at Rs.10,000/- is inadequate. We agree. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.15,000/- can be awarded as compensation under the head of pain and suffering. 5. Under the head of permanent disability, a total amount of Rs.26,800/- has been awarded (Rs.16,800/- under the head of reduction in earning capacity called permanent disability in the impugned award and Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of amenities). The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the amount awarded is too low and inadequate. Adopting the multiplier-multiplicand method, the compensation ought to have been ascertained, contends counsel. We reckon the monthly income as Rs.3,000/-. The medical certificate shows that 30% is the physical disability suffered. Loss of vision of right eye is the 4 M.A.C.A.No.1491 of 2011 permanent disability suffered. Going by entry 26 of part 2 of schedule 1 of the Employees Compensation Act, we are satisfied that the assessment of the Doctor who issued Ext.A14 disability certificate that the appellant had suffered disability to the extent of 30% can safely be accepted. We are satisfied that compensation can be awarded under the multiplier-multiplicand method,taking 7 as the multiplier as rightly done by the tribunal. 6. We further clarify that proportionate cost awarded by the tribunal shall be calculated as per the decision in J **eena v. Satheesh Babu.K [2011(3) KLT 943].** The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.69,800/- as compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the tribunal. |i)|Loss of earnings (services)|Loss of earnings (services)|Rs.6,000/-| |---|---|---|---| ||(No amount awarded|by the|| ||tribunal (Rs.3,000/- x|2)|| |ii)|Pain and suffering||Rs.5,000/-| ||(Rs.15,000/- minus Rs.10,000/-)||| |iii)|Permanent disability||Rs.58,800/-| ||[Rs.75,600/-(Rs.3,000/- x 12 x||| ||7 x 30/100) minus Rs.16,800/-]||| ||||---------------------| |||Total |**Rs.69,800/-**| ||||**=========**| 5 M.A.C.A.No.1491 of 2011 7. In the result, a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) Appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.69,800/- (Rupees sixty nine thousand eight hundred only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as directed by the tribunal in the impugned award. d) Proportionate cost before the tribunal shall be paid as per the decision in **Jeena** (Supra). e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. ## **(R.BASANT, JUDGE)** ## **(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)** jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge M.A.C.A.No.1491 of 2011 6 7 M.A.C.A.No.1491 of 2011 **K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.** .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010