M.N. Jagadeesh v. K.K. Sunny and Arish and The United India Insurance Company Limited

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Sophy Thomas
Judgment Date: 2024-05-22
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is partly allowed. Notional income is fixed at Rs. 6,000 per month; disability is treated as 7% (Ext. A6). Enhanced compensation totals Rs. 81,700, with Rs. 81,700 to be deposited by the insurer at 8% interest from the date of petition till deposit, within two months, before the MACT Thrissur. The Tribunal shall disburse after deducting liabilities, if any; no costs are awarded.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed; enhanced compensation of Rs.81,700; insurer to deposit within two months; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M.N. Jagadeesh

Respondents

K.K. Sunny
Arish
The United India Insurance Company Limited

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• T. C. Suresh Menon
• A. R. Nimod

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. S. Jayasree

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA No. 26 of 2014) arising from an award of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in OP(MV) No. 845 of 2006, challenging the adequacy of compensation for a road traffic accident that occurred on 22 February 2006. Jagadeesh, then 27 and employed as an aluminum fabricator with a claimed monthly income of Rs. 6,000, was knocked down by a JCB driven by the 2nd respondent. The Tribunal fixed his notional income at Rs. 3,000 per month and awarded Rs. 1,07,800 in total compensation. The appellant contends that, as a skilled worker, his notional income should be higher; he relies on the Supreme Court’s Ramachandrappa decision (AIR 2011 SC 2951) to argue for a notional income of Rs. 5,500–6,000 per month in 2006. He also seeks re-determination of disability at 7% (Ext. A6) and inclusion of enhanced amounts for loss of earnings, nourishment, clothing damage, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities. The respondents’ submissions are not detailed in the record, though the insurer admitted the policy. The High Court agrees to raise notional income to Rs. 6,000, recalculates components, and awards a total enhanced compensation of Rs. 81,700. The insurer is directed to deposit the amount with interest and the Tribunal to disburse after deductions, within two months, with no costs.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant argued that Jagadeesh, a skilled aluminum fabricator, was earning Rs.6,000 per month and that the Tribunal’s fixation at Rs.3,000 was too low. Relying on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 2011 SC 2951), he asserted that a higher notional income for 2006 was appropriate and that his disability should be taken as 7% (Ext. A6), not 4%, with corresponding re-assessment of losses, including four months of lost earnings, extra nourishment, clothing damage, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities. He contends the Tribunal failed to properly account for continuous pain and functional disability.

Contentions of Respondents

The record provides limited details of the respondents’ submissions. It notes that the 3rd respondent-insurer admitted the policy and that counsel for the insurer appeared. Specific contentions from respondents challenging the enhancement are not recorded in the provided text.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	AIR 2011 SC 2951	Positive	Cited to support increasing notional income for a skilled worker in the motor accident context, justifying the notional income of Rs.6,000 per month in this case.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 22 [ ND ] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1946 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 26 OF 2014`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.02.2013 IN OPMV NO.845 OF 2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL THRISSUR APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ``` ``` M.N. JAGADEESH AGED 34 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT MULLASSERY HOUSE, ANANDAPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.A.R.NIMOD ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 K.K. SUNNY RESIDING AT KALAMBATH HOUSE, PACHALIPURAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 308.`** - **`2 ARISH`** - **`S/O.ASSIZ, RESIDING AT CHERUMPALA HOUSE, ACHPARANDA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 001.`** - **`3 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED P.B.NO.6, ALENGADAN BUILDINGS, TANA, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 121.`** - **`BY ADV SMT.S.JAYASREE`** ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 ``` MACA NO. 26 OF 2014 ``` ## **`J U D G M E N T`** ``` This appeal is at the instance of the claimant in OP(MV) No.845 of 2006 on the file ``` ``` of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur impugning the award on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. ``` ``` 2. The appellant met with a road traffic accident on 22/2/2006 at 8.30 pm while he was riding a motorcycle through Anandapuram-Vallakunnu public road. He was ``` ``` knocked down by a JCB bearing registration No. KL-8/N 527, driven by the 2 nd respondent in a ``` ``` rash and negligent manner. He sustained serious injuries including fracture of shaft of femur middle third, and fracture of malleolus also. He was 27 years old at the time of accident and was working as a skilled fabricator, earning ``` 3 ``` MACA NO. 26 OF 2014 ``` ``` monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. Due to the ``` ``` accident, he suffered disability to the extent ``` ``` of 7%, which was permanent in nature. He approached the Tribunal claiming compensation ``` ``` of Rs.2,20,000/-. But learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.1,07,800/-, against which he has ``` ``` preferred this appeal. ``` `3. The 1st respondent was the owner of the` ``` JCB, 2nd respondent was its driver and 3rd respondent was its Insurer. The 3rd ``` ``` respondent-Insurer entered appearance through counsel and admitted the Policy. ``` `4. Now this Court is called upon to answer` ``` whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned award warranting interference by this Court. ``` `5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant` 4 ``` MACA NO. 26 OF 2014 ``` ``` and learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. ``` ``` 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was a skilled worker, as he was working as an aluminum fabricator. Though he was earning monthly ``` ``` income of Rs.6,000/-, the Tribunal fixed his notional income @ Rs.3,000/-, which is on the lower side. Even going by the decision Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram ``` ``` Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC ``` ``` 2951] , even a coolie worker was eligible to get his notional income fixed @ Rs.5,500/- in the year 2006. Being a skilled worker, this Court is inclined to add Rs.5,00/- more to that income to fix his notional income @ Rs.6,000/- per month. ``` ``` 7. Learned Tribunal assessed loss of earning ``` ``` for four months @ Rs.3,000/-. Since we have ``` 5 ``` MACA NO. 26 OF 2014 ``` ``` fixed his notional income @ Rs.6,000/-, he is eligible to get Rs.24,000/- for loss of earning for four months. After deducting Rs.12,000/- already awarded, he is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.12,000/- under the head ‘loss of earning’. ``` ``` 8. The appellant was hospitalized for 20 days. Though he claimed Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment, no amount was awarded by the ``` ``` Tribunal. Since he was hospitalized for 20 days, this Court is inclined to award Rs.2,000/- (20x100) under the head ‘extra nourishment’. ``` ``` 9. For damage to clothing, no amount was awarded by the Tribunal, though the appellant claimed Rs.500/-. This Court is of the view that Rs.500/- is quite reasonable towards damage to clothing, and hence allowed. ``` 6 ``` MACA NO. 26 OF 2014 ``` ``` 10. Towards pain and suffering, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.18,000/- against his claim of Rs.20,000/-. Since he suffered fracture of shaft of femur and malleolus with skin abrasion over upper thigh and both knee joints, this Court is inclined to award Rs.2,000/- more under the head pain and suffering. ``` ``` 11. In order to prove the disability suffered by the appellant, he produced Ext.A6 disability certificate, showing that he had suffered 7% whole body disability. Learned Tribunal accepted disability to the extent of 4% only, finding that the Doctor, who issued that certificate was not examined. Even then, the Tribunal has stated in paragraph 8 of the ``` ``` award that the appellant appeared before him and he was found to be having difficulty in sitting and walking. He was not able to climb ``` 7 ``` MACA NO. 26 OF 2014 ``` ``` and he was having continuous pain on both legs and hip. Considering that aspect, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal ought to have accepted 7% disability noted by the Doctor in Ext.A6 certificate, even if the Doctor was not examined. So, the disability compensation can be assessed as Rs.85,680/- (6000x12x17x7/100). ``` ``` After deducting the amount already awarded under that head, i.e., Rs.24,480/-, the ``` ``` appellant is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.61,200/- under the head ‘permanent disability’. ``` ``` 12. Towards loss of amenities, learned ``` ``` Tribunal awarded Rs.16,000/- against his claim of Rs.20,000/-. After seeing the appellant, the Tribunal has specifically noted his difficulties in sitting, walking, climbing etc. ``` ``` and the continuous pain he was suffering on ``` 8 ``` MACA NO. 26 OF 2014 ``` ``` both legs and hip. So, this Court is inclined to add Rs.4,000/- more towards loss of amenities. ``` ## `13. The enhanced compensation awarded in` ``` this appeal is stated in the table below:- ``` |Head of claim|Amount awarded by the Tribunal|Amount awarded in appeal|Difference to be drawn as enhanced compensation| |---|---|---|---| |Loss of earning|12,000/-|24,000/- (6000x4)|12,000/-| |Extra Nourishment|–|2,000/- (20x100)|2,000/-| |Damage to clothing|–|500/-|500/-| |Pain & suffering|18,000/-|20,000/-|| ||||2,000/-| |Disability|24,480/-|85,680/- (6000x12x17x7 /100)|61,200/-| |Loss of amenities|16,000/-|20,000/-|4,000/-| |TOTAL 81,700/-|||| ``` 14. In the result, the appellant is entitled ``` ``` to get Rs.81,700/- in total as enhanced ``` ``` compensation. ``` 9 ``` MACA NO. 26 OF 2014 ``` ``` 15. The 3rd respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.81,700/- with 8% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit (excluding 168 days of delay in filing the appeal) before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Learned Tribunal shall disburse the compensation amount to the appellant after ``` ``` deducting the liabilities, if any, of the appellant towards tax, balance court fee, legal ``` ``` benefit funds etc. ``` ``` The appeal is allowed to the extent as ``` ``` above, and no order is made as to costs. ``` ``` Sd/- SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE ``` ``` ska ```