Muhammed Ashiq v. P.V. Babu and others (MACA No. 2255 of 2010)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias, J.
Judgment Date: 2021-07-30
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed. The compensation is enhanced to Rs.2,71,600, with an additional Rs.1,11,200 to be paid as enhanced compensation along with 7% interest from the petition date till deposit and proportionate costs. The 3rd respondent (insurer) shall deposit the enhanced amount before the Tribunal within 60 days, and the Tribunal shall disburse it to the appellant in accordance with law.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; compensation enhanced; insurer to deposit enhanced amount within 60 days; Tribunal to disburse in accordance with law.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Muhammed Ashiq

Respondents

P.V. Babu
The Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Thrissur
C.C. Simon
The Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. T.H. Abdul Azeez

Counsels for Respondents

• P. Jacob Mathew
• Mathews Jacob Sr.
• Rajesh Nair

Case Synopsis & Summary

Muhammed Ashiq, an 18-year-old B.Com student and boxing champion, sustained severe injuries after a lorry collided with a bus near Chevoor, Thrissur, on 12.10.2006. He was hospitalized, underwent surgery for a compound fracture of the right humerus, and required rehabilitation. He filed O.P.(MV) No.35/2007 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda, seeking Rs. 3,01,000 from the lorry owner, driver, and insurers of the lorry and bus. Respondents 2 and 5 were later deleted from the party array. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim, awarding Rs. 1,60,400 with 7% interest from the petition date and proportionate costs. Dissatisfied, Ashiq challenged the quantum in this MACA. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s Ramachandrappa decision to fix the notional income at Rs.5,000 per month (identifying 2006 as the relevant year) rather than the Tribunal’s Rs.1,500. It held the petitioner was indisposed for about four months and had 10% permanent disability, confirming no error in disability assessment. The judge recalculated losses: loss of studies Rs.20,000; transport Rs.2,000; bystander expenses Rs.1,800; medical expenses Rs.84,800; pain and suffering Rs.25,000; disability loss Rs.1,08,000; and loss of amenities and disfiguration Rs.30,000, totaling Rs.2,71,600. The appeal was allowed, enhancing compensation by Rs.1,11,200 with 7% interest to be deposited within 60 days, with disbursement through the Tribunal.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal’s quantum is grossly inadequate in light of severe injuries, extended hospitalization, and a four-month incapacity. Relying on Ramachandrappa (2011) 13 SCC 236, notional income should be reassessed upwards (to Rs.5,000 per month for 2006) and additional heads such as loss of studies, disability, loss of amenities, and disfiguration should be adequately compensated. The appellant seeks enhancement to reflect true impact of injuries and loss of earning capacity.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the Tribunal’s award was just and comprehensive, with liability admitted and insurance coverage; the notional income and disability assessment are to be maintained as concluded by the Tribunal. They contend there is no basis to disturb the quantum, save for mathematical adjustments.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.	[(2011) 13 SCC 236]	Positive	Cited to justify re-fixing the notional income of the appellant in line with Supreme Court principle that notional income can be revised upward considering circumstances and year of accident.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **FRIDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1943** ## **MACA NO. 2255 OF 2010** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 17.02.2010 IN OPMV 35/2007 OF MOTOR** ## **ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER :** **MUHAMMED ASHIQ, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.UMMER, THEPRAMBIL HOUSE, AZAD ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 P.V.BABU, S/O.VAREED, PANANCHERY HOUSE, MULANKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR - 680 581.** - **2* LIJO S/O.JOHN CHEMMANNOOR HOUSE KOLAZHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR P.O., THRISSUR - 680 010. (DELETED)** - **3 THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., THRISSUR - 680 001.** - **4 C.C.SIMON, S/O.CHAKKORU, CHALAKKAL HOUSE, PURANATTUKARA P.O.,, THRISSUR - 680 551.** - **5* RAVICHANDRAN S/O.KUNJAPPAN, PUNJAIKOROTTU HOUSE, PEECHI VILLAGE, INCHAKUNDU P.O., THRISSUR - 680 312. (DELETED)** - **6 THE MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,, CHENNAI - 600 001. RESPONDENTS 2 AND 5 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2021 IN I.A.NO.1/2021 IN MACA NO.2255/2010. BY ADVS. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR. SRI.RAJESH NAIR** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **30.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA NO. 2255 OF 2010 **2** ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant was the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.35/2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents before the Tribunal. Pursuant to the order of this Court on 08.04.2021 in I.A.No.1/2021, the respondents 2 and 5 had been deleted from the party array. Therefore, the parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the claim petition. 2. The facts in brief in the claim petition, relevant for the determination of the appeal, are: on 12.10.2006, while the petitioner was traveling in a bus bearing registration No.KL8B/4114 at Chevoor, a lorry bearing registration No.KL-8Q/9825 (lorry) came from the opposite direction and hit the bus. The MACA NO. 2255 OF 2010 **3** petitioner sustained serious injuries and was treated as an inpatient at the Elite Mission Hospital, Thrissur, for a period of 14 days. He suffered a compound comminuted fracture of the shaft of right humerus, compound comminuted condylar fracture of right humerus and compound fracture of the right olecranon. He was operated on the very same day and internal fixation with plates and screws was carried out. He was discharged on 21.10.2006. Thereafter he was re-admitted on 28.12.2007 and discharged on 02.01.2008. He was advised physiotherapy. The petitioner was a B-Com student and was a boxing champion at the State level. The accident occurred on account of the negligence of the 2[nd] respondent, who drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner. The 1[st] respondent was the owner and the 3[rd] respondent was the insurer of the lorry. Respondents 4 to 6 were MACA NO. 2255 OF 2010 **4** the owner, driver and insurer of the bus. The petitioner claimed a total compensation of Rs.3,01,000/- from the respondents. 3. The respondents 1 to 4 and 5 did not contest the proceedings and were set ex parte. 4. The respondents 4 and 6 – the insurers of the lorry and bus filed written statements admitting that both the vehicles had valid insurance coverage. 5. The petitioner produced and marked Exts.A1 to A9 in evidence. The respondents produced and marked Exts.B1 & B2 in evidence. 6. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part by permitting the petitioner to realise an amount of Rs.1,60,400/- from the respondents with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and proportionate cost. The 3[rd] MACA NO. 2255 OF 2010 **5** respondent was directed to pay the compensation amount. 7. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner is in appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent and the learned counsel appearing for 3[rd] & 6[th] respondents. 9. The sole question that arises for consideration is: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just? 10. Ext.A2 charge sheet filed by the Cherppu Police in Crime No.394/2006 proves that the accident occurred solely on account of the negligence of the 2[nd] respondent, who drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner. Undisputedly, the 1[st] respondent was the owner and 3[rd] respondent was the insurer of MACA NO. 2255 OF 2010 **6** the lorry. Therefore, the 3[rd] respondent is to indemnify the liability of the 1[st] respondent by paying the compensation to the petitioner. 11. The petitioner had claimed that he was a B.Com student. The Tribunal, fixed the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.1,500/per month. 12. In **Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insruance Company Ltd.** [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the Honourable Supreme court had fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year 2004 at Rs.4,500/- per month. ## **Notional Income** : 13. Following the ratio in the aforesaid decision and taking note of the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2006, I fix the notional monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.5,000/-. MACA NO. 2255 OF 2010 **7** ## **Loss of studies** 14. It is on record that the petitioner sustained three compound fractures and was treated as an inpatient for the period from 12.10.2006 to 21.10.2006 and, thereafter, from 28.12.2007 to 02.01.2008. It was also on record that the petitioner has suffered 10% permanent disability as evidenced by Ext.A7. Therefore, necessarily as found by the Tribunal, the petitioner was indisposed for a period of four months. 15. In view of the re-fixation of the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.5,000/- per month and holding that he was indisposed for a period of four months, I fix the compensation for loss of his studies at 'Rs.20,000/-'. ## **Loss due to disability** 16. As per Ext.A7 disability certificate, the doctor who treated the petitioner has certified MACA NO. 2255 OF 2010 **8** that he has a permanent disability of 15% for his upper limb. The Tribunal after seeing the petitioner and assessing the disability fixed the disability at 10%. On a re-appreciation of the materials on record, I do not find any error in the assessment of disability by the Tribunal. Therefore, I confirm the permanent disability of the petitioner at 10%. ## **Multiplier** : 17. The petitioner was aged 18 years at the time of accident. Hence, the relevant multiplier is '18'. ## : **Loss due to disability** 18. Considering the fact that the petitioner was aged 18 years at the time of accident, his income re-fixed at Rs.5,000/-, his disability at 10%, and the multiplier at '18', I fix his compensation for loss due to disability at Rs.1,08,000/-. MACA NO. 2255 OF 2010 **9** ## **Compensation for loss of amenities and - dis figuration** 19. The petitioner had claimed a compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head loss of amenities and Rs.20,000/- under the head dis-figuration of hand. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.8,000/- for dis-figuration. 20. Taking into account the serious injuries that the petitioner had sustained, including three fractures, and was hospitalized in two spells and was indisposed for a period of four months, I hold that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the aforesaid heads is on lower side. Therefore, I re-fix the compensation under the above two heads at Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.18,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 21. With respect to other heads of compensation, I find that the Tribunal has MACA NO. 2255 OF 2010 **10** awarded reasonable and just compensation. 22. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record and the law laid down in the aforesaid decision, I am of the definite opinion that the appellant/petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below for easy reference: |SI. No|Head of claim|Amounts awarded by the Tribunal (in rupees)|Amounts modified and recalculated by this Court (in rupees)| |---|---|---|---| |1.|Loss of studies|Nil|20,000| |2.|Transport|2,000|2,000| |3.|Bystander expenses|1,800|1,800| |4.|Medical expenses|84,800|84,800| |5.|Pain and sufferings|25,000|25,000| |6.|Loss due to disability|28,800|1,08,000| |7.|Loss of amenities with dis-figuration|18,000|30,000| ||**Total**|**1,60,400**|**2,71,600**| In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing MACA NO. 2255 OF 2010 **11** the compensation by a further amount of Rs.1,11,200/- with interest @ 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of deposit, after deducting the period of 139 days i.e., the period of delay in preferring the appeal and as ordered by this Court on 08.04.2021 in C.M.Appln.No.1 of 2010, and proportionate cost. The 3[rd] respondent shall deposit the enhanced compensation before the Tribunal with interest and proportionate cost within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Tribunal shall disburse the enhanced compensation to the appellant/petitioner in accordance with law. Sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** AMV/30/07//2021