Murugan v. P.S. Sudha, Mohammed Dileep, New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Badharudeen
Judgment Date: 2022-07-04
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal partly allowed. Enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,11,800 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the petition date to deposit date (excluding 91 days). Insurance company directed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months from today; appellant to be entitled to release on deposit.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed; enhanced compensation directed to be deposited by insurer within two months with specified interest terms.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Murugan

Respondents

P.S. Sudha
Mohammed Dileep
New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri D. Kishore

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Sri P. Jacob Mathew

Case Synopsis & Summary

Murugan, a 37-year-old goldsmith, sustained grievous injuries when a car (KL-01/Y-2279) collided with an autorickshaw (KL-01/H-6748) on a public road near Peyad, Thiruvananthapuram, causing the autorickshaw to capsize and strike his left eye. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 89,100 as compensation against the three respondents (car owner, autorickshaw owner, and insurer). The appellant challenged the award in MACA No. 20 of 2011 on grounds including applicant’s claimed monthly income (Rs. 4,500) versus Tribunal’s Rs. 2,000 (later Rs. 4,000 under a cited Supreme Court ratio), and the assessment of disability (30% visual disability argued as whole-body impairment; Tribunal found 12% and later increased to 20% for penetrating injury). The Tribunal’s methodology and the use of Exts. A4–A6 evidence were scrutinized. The appellant contended valuation should reflect higher earnings capacity and greater disability impact; the insurer contended the disability was only visual and not whole-body. The court, applying the ratio in Ramachandrappa (2011), re-evaluated income to Rs. 4,000/month, adjusted disability to 20% for the eye injury, recalculated loss of earnings and disability benefits, and partly allowed the appeal by enhancing total compensation. The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months with 7.5% interest, excluding a 91-day disallowed period.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Appellant argued that Murugan’s income at the time of the accident should be Rs. 4,500 per month (as a goldsmith) rather than the Tribunal’s Rs. 2,000 (ultimately Rs. 4,000 under the Ramachandrappa ratio). He claimed 30% disability, treated by the Medical Board as whole-body impairment due to a penetrating left-eye injury, and sought higher compensation for loss of earnings, disability, and pain and suffering, supported by Exts. A4–A6. The appellant contended that Ext A5 indicates substantial impairment; he pressed for re-evaluation of earnings, disability, and consequent damages as per established precedent.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer argued that the 30% disability was limited to visual impairment of a mild nature, not a whole-body disability, and relied on Ext. A5 and A4 to argue that the Tribunal’s 12% disability figure was appropriate, with no substantial evidence of functional impairment. It argued that there was no basis to accept a higher income beyond what Tribunal determined for the era (2003) and that the Tribunal’s calculation fell within the evidence presented. The respondents contended that the appeal should not overturn the Tribunal’s findings except as warranted by the evidence and applicable law.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.	[(2011) 13 SCC 236]	Positive	Court followed the ratio in Ramachandrappa to fix the claimant’s monthly income at Rs. 4,000 instead of Rs. 2,000, applying the established principle from the cited SCC decision.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN MONDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1944** **MACA NO. 20 OF 2011** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.02.2010 IN OPMV 345/2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** MURUGAN, AGED 37 YEARS S/O.KRISHNAN CHETTIYAR, AMBALATHILVILA VEEDU, POTTAYIL, VILAVOORKAL DESOM, PEROORKADA P.O. BY ADV SRI.D.KISHORE ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** 1 P.S.SUDHA, KARTHIKA, CONVENT ROAD, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 020. 2 MOHAMMED DILEEP, S/O. SHAMSUDEEN T.C.20/2016, KARAMANA P.O.-695 002. 3 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, PULIMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY ADV SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No.20/2011 2 ## _**A. BADHARUDEEN, J.**_ ================================ _M.A.C.A.No.20 of 2011_ ================================ _Dated this the 4[th] day of July, 2022_ ## _**J U D G M E N T**_ Award dated 10.02.2010 in O.P(MV).No.345/2004 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the original petitioner. Respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. 3. Facts of the case: It is alleged that the appellant, who was aged 37 years, at the time of accident, a Goldsmith by profession, while walking through Thachottukavu – Peyad public road, when reached near M.A.C.A.No.20/2011 3 Indian Overseas Bank at Peyad, a car bearing Registration No.KL- 01/Y-2279 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came along the said road and hit against an autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KL-01/H-6748 coming from the opposite direction. Then the autorickshaw capsized over the appellant and the glass portion of the autorickshaw pierced into the left eye of the appellant and he sustained grievous injuries. The 1st respondent is the registered owner of the car and the 2nd respondent is the registered owner of the autorickshaw involved in the accident. The 3rd respondent is the insurer of both the vehicles involved in the accident. Hence the appellant prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lakh to be realised from the respondents. 4. The 1st and 2nd respondents filed separate written statements denying negligence attributed on the part of the car driver. It was alleged that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the autorickshaw. M.A.C.A.No.20/2011 4 5. The 3rd respondent, the insurer of the car and autorickshaw, filed written statement disputing negligence and denying liability while admitting policy to both vehicles. 6. The Tribunal the matter on adjudicated relying documentary evidence marked as Exts.A1 to A7 on the side of the appellant. The respondents not let in any evidence. Finally Rs.89,100/- was granted as compensation with direction to the 3rd respondent, the insurer of the car, to pay the same. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant raised dispute with regard to fixation of monthly income of the appellant at Rs.2,500/as against claim of Rs.4,500/- per month, on the assertion that the appellant was working as Goldsmith at the time of the accident. 8. In the absence of evidence, the Tribunal fixed the same at Rs.2,000/- in this case involving accident of the year 2003. Following the ratio in [(2011) 13 SCC 236], _**Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.** ,_ the M.A.C.A.No.20/2011 5 income to be fixed at Rs.4,000/-. Therefore, the income is refixed at Rs.4,000/-. 9. The next challenge is regarding the percentage of disability accepted by the Tribunal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant sustained sutured upper lid wound on his left eye and he underwent treatment for the same for a period of 3 days at Regional Institute of Opthalmology, Thiruvananthapuram. Then he had consultation and admission at Aravind Hospital, Madurai. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, 30% disability assessed by the Medical Board as such has to be taken in this matter, since the appellant was a Goldsmith at the time of accident. 10. Whereas the learned counsel for the insurance company opposed the said prayer. According to the learned counsel for the insurance company, Ext.A5 does not suggest the whole body disability and the percentage of disability assessed at 30% is M.A.C.A.No.20/2011 6 regarding `visual' disability of mild nature. Therefore, the Tribunal could not be faulted in reducing the disability to 12%. 11. On perusal of Ext.A4 discharge card, the appellant was treated for penetrating wound of upper lid. Ext.A6 would go to show that 30% disability was assessed as visual disability of mild nature. Therefore, Ext.A5 does not suggest whole body disability. No attempt made by the appellant to assess the whole body disability or functional disability. 12. The disability was assessed during 2006. Considering the nature of the treatment and the percentage of disability assessed as visual limb disability alone, 30% disability as per Ext.X1 cannot be accepted as the whole body disability. However, in view of the penetrating injury on the left eye, the disability can be increased to 20% from 12%. 13. In this matter, the Tribunal granted loss of earnings for a period of 3 months. The same is recalculated @ Rs.4,000/- per M.A.C.A.No.20/2011 7 month for a period of 3 months, which would come to Rs.12,000/-. Out of which Rs.6,000/- was granted by the Tribunal. Hence **Rs.6,000/- more** is granted under the head **loss of earnings** . 14. Disability income is also recalculated as under: 4000 X 12 X 15 X 20/1000 + Rs.1,44,000/-, out of which Rs.43,200/- was granted. Hence **Rs.1,00,800/- more** is granted under the head **permanent disability resulting in loss of earning power.** The Tribunal granted Rs.15,000/- only under the head pain and suffering. **Rs.5,000/- more** is granted under the head **pain and suffering** . In all other heads, the Tribunal granted reasonable compensation. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. It is ordered that the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.1,11,800/- (Rupees One lakh eleven thousand eight hundred only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum granted by the Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation excluding M.A.C.A.No.20/2011 8 the period of 91 days wherein, grant of interest was specifically disallowed by the order in C.M.Application No.1/2011 dated 14.02.2022. The insurance company is directed to deposit the same in the name of the appellant within two months from today. On deposit, the appellant can release the same. _Sd/-_ ## _**(A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE)**_ _rtr/_