Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaDivision BenchDisposed of at admission stage.

Mohan S/o Ayyappan v Surendran S/o Krishnan and Deputy Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No. 3171 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. T. Ravikumar
  • K. P. Jyothindranath
Judgment Date
2016-10-17
Court Decision / Holding
This appeal is disposed of at admission stage. The court upholds the Tribunal’s general approach but recalculates compensation, fixing the notional monthly income at Rs. 9,000. It awards an additional Rs. 34,000 (comprising Rs. 12,000 for loss during treatment and Rs. 21,840 for loss of earning capacity, rounded) and directs payment within two months. Interest on the enhanced amount at 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization is granted.
Final Disposition
Disposed of at admission stage.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Mohanam S/o Ayyappan, aged 49 years, House No.287, Ward No.13, Cheruvil House, West Kodikulam P.O, Kodikulam Village, Idukki District

Respondents

  • Surendran S/o Krishnan, Kannukudiyil House, West Kodikulam P.O, Kodikulam Village, Thodupuzha-685582, Idukki District
  • Deputy Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vishnu Building, 2nd Floor, K.P.Vallon Road, Kadavanthara, Cochin-682020

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. N. K. Karnis

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt. K. S. Santhi

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA) arising from an award of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Thodupuzha in OPMV 628/2015. Mohanan, a headload worker, suffered a bimalleolar fracture in an accident on 14.9.2015. The Tribunal assessed his disability at 7% and used a notional monthly income of Rs. 7,000 for compensation calculation, despite the medical board having fixed a 20% disability. The appellant contends that the Tribunal’s low disability percentage and the modest income figure undervalue his losses; he also argues for higher compensation in light of his actual earnings (about Rs. 20,000 per month) and the principle from Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd (2011) 13 SCC 236 regarding notional income in similar cases. The insurer-owner contesting party defends the Tribunal’s findings, emphasizing there was only a bimalleolar fracture, no visible disfiguration, and that the 7% disability is consistent with the evidence. On review, this Court agrees that the disability percentage does not warrant interference, but reconsiders the monetary components. It determines that the appropriate notional income should be Rs. 9,000 per month, and recalculates compensation to Rs. 34,000 (Rs. 12,000 for loss during treatment and Rs. 21,840 for loss of earning capacity, rounded). An 8% interest is awarded from the date of petition, with payment to be effected within two months. The appeal is disposed of at admission stage.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in accepting only 7% disability while the medical board had fixed 20% and that the notional income of Rs. 7,000 per month undervalues his loss of earnings as a headload worker earning around Rs. 20,000 per month. He relies on the principle in Ramachandrappa (2011) 13 SCC 236 to justify using an enhanced notional income for calculation of compensation, and urges recalculation of head loss of earnings and consequent compensation.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents submit that the injury is a simple bimalleolar fracture with no disfigurement and that the Tribunal’s finding of 7% disability is proper. They argue that the notional income of Rs. 7,000 was reasonable given the context and that the reliance on RR’s Ramachandrappa is misplaced for this case, justifying no interference with the Tribunal’s computation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd(2011) 13 SCC 236PositiveCited as authority for notional income approach in calculation of compensation; used to justify raising the notional income from the Tribunal’s figure to Rs. 9,000 per month.

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 Mohan S/o Ayyappan v Surendran S/o Krishnan and Deputy Manager, Reliance General Insurance 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 C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/25TH ASWINA, 1938 MACA.No. 3171 of 2016 () ------------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 628/2015 of ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T, THODUPUZHA DATED 12-08-2016 ## APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: ----------------------- MOHANAN S/O. AYYAPPAN, AGED:49 YEARS, HOUSE NO.287, WARD NO.13, CHERUVIL HOUSE, WEST KODIKULAM P.O, KODIKULAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT ## BY ADV. SRI.N.K.KARNIS ## RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------ 1. SURENDRAN S/O. KRISHNAN, KANNUKUDIYIL HOUSE, WEST KODIKULAM P.O, KODIKULAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA-685582, IDUKKI DISTRICT 2. DEPUTY MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., VISHNU BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, K.P.VALLON ROAD, KADAVANTHARA, COCHIN-682020 ## R2 BY ADV. SMT.K.S.SANTHI THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR** ## **& K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.** **========================== M.A.C.A. No.3171 OF 2016 ==========================** Dated this the 17[th] day of October, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** ## _Jyothindranath, J._ This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P.(MV).No.628 of 2015 on the files of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Thodupuzha. 2.When this appeal came up for admission, Sri.N.K.Karnis, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that, the appellant, who is a headload worker by profession, met with a motor vehicle accident in which he sustained bimalleolar fracture on the right leg. It is the submission that the medical board attached to the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Thodupuzha assessed the disability as **M.A.C.A.3171/2016** 2 20%. But, without any cogent reason, the Tribunal took only 7% disability for assessment purpose. It is also the grievance that though the appellant is a loading-unloading worker who was earning `20,000/- per month, the Tribunal considered only a notional income of `7,000/-. It is also the submission that being a headload worker, the actual disability is on a higher side than what was assessed by the medical board. 3.We heard Smt.K.S.Santhi, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company. The learned counsel submitted before us that, here is a case where there is only bimalleolar fracture on the right leg. The disability assessed by the medical board is 20%. The Tribunal categorically highlighted in the award that the petitioner was personally present before the Tribunal and there is no visible disfiguration. After hearing the learned counsel, we feel that this appeal can be disposed of, at the admission stage itself. We heard the learned counsel in detail. **M.A.C.A.3171/2016** 3 4.After perusing the award, it is seen that the Tribunal considered only `7,000/- as monthly income, for calculation purpose. The accident occurred on 14.9.2015. In an accident occurred in 2004, in the case of a coolie, the Apex Court considered a notional income of `4,500/- per month **[Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.** [ **(2011) 13 SCC 236]** . Thereafter more than 11 years elapsed. Thus, considering all aspects, it is only proper to consider `9,000/- per month as income for calculation purpose in this case. After going through the award and the reason given by the Tribunal, we feel that no error committed by the Tribunal in considering only 7% disability for the assessment purpose. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that even in the case of amputation of leg below knee, the whole body disability will be only 40%. Under such circumstances, no interference on that aspect is warranted. Thus, re-assessing the compensation on the head of loss of earning during treatment period, the appellant will be entitled for an **M.A.C.A.3171/2016** 4 additional compensation of `12,000/- (9000x6-42000) on that head. On the head of loss of reduction in earning capacity, the appellant will be entitled for an additional compensation of `21,840 (9000x12x13x7/100-76440). Thus, the appellant will be entitled for an additional compensation of `33,840/- which is rounded off to `34,000/-. The insurance company shall pay the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The additional compensation will bear 8% interest from the date of the petition till realisation. The parties shall bear their respective costs. This appeal is disposed of, at the admission stage itself as stated above. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **Sd/-** **K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH (JUDGE)** **spc/** **M.A.C.A.3171/2016** 5 **M.A.C.A.3171/2016** 6 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** **M.A.C.A.3171/2016** 7