New India Assurance Company Limited v. Dr. C. H. S. Mani

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2020-06-22
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is devoid of merits; the High Court dismisses the insurer’s appeal and confirms the Tribunal’s award, including liability and the compensation figures, with 9% simple interest from the date of the petition.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed; Tribunal’s award maintained; insurer to pay with 9% interest from date of petition.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

The New India Assurance Company Limited

Respondents

Dr. C. H. S. Mani

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Mathews Jacob (Sr.)
• Sri P. Jacob Mathew

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal under MACA No.1676 of 2015(F) arising from an award by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, in OP(MV)No.1952/2003 dated 18 February 2014. The insurer-appellant challenged the ₹6,28,590 award to Dr. C. H. S. Mani for injuries suffered in a road traffic accident where the car driver was alleged to be negligent. The rider of the motorcycle involved in the accident remained ex parte. The insurer contested the maintainability and questioned the quantum, asserting lack of a Final Report in the FIR to prove negligence, claimed the respondent’s income loss was non-existent since he was a government doctor, and urged reductions in compensation on several heads. The Tribunal awarded compensation across heads including loss of earning, transport, nourishment, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, while noting a cap of ₹10,00,000 on the claim. The appellant argued higher quantum, incorrect multiplier (15 instead of 9), and overvaluation of certain heads, including loss of amenities and medical expenditure. The High Court held that Ext.A1 FIR/FIS, Ext.A2 scene mahazar, and Ext.A16 wound certificate supported negligence, and that the Tribunal’s award was not excessive. It endorsed future-prospects considerations and the notional income logic, found no reason to interfere, and dismissed the appeal, maintaining the Tribunal’s award and the 9% simple interest from the petition date.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Future prospects in determining loss of earning capacity
Multiplier principle in awarding compensation
Notional income and addition for future prospects

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The insurer argued that the FIR/Final Report was not produced to establish negligence, the quantum is excessive, the respondent’s income loss is unfounded given his government service, and the tribunal erred in using a multiplier of 15. They contended that notional income should be lower, future prospects should be limited, medical expenses claimed were unsubstantiated by bills, and certain heads (e.g., loss of amenities) were overstated. They emphasized the need to apply a 9% multiplier and to confine compensation to a more conservative assessment, urging reduction of several heads to align with actual proofs.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent’s precise arguments are not detailed in the excerpt; the appellant’s arguments are recorded, and the court’s analysis indicates consideration of the evidence and relevance of future prospects and multipliers rather than a wholesale retraction of the award.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Kajal v. Jagdish Chand	2020 (1) KLT 743(SC)	Positive	Cited to justify allowing medical expenses beyond bills paid in the claimant’s name, recognizing hospitalisation and recuperation as reasonable basis for expenses.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1942** **MACA.No.1676 OF 2015(F)** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)No.1952/2003 DATED 18-02-2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **APPELLANT/3rd RESPONDENT:** **THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI - 11. BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW** ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:** **DR. C.H.S. MANI, TC 37/1899, “DEVI”, SWATHI NAGAR ROAD, WEST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-06-2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.No.1676 OF 2015(F)** **:2:** ## **J U D G M E N T** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ## _**Dated this the 22[th] day of June, 2020**_ The 3[rd] respondent-insurer in OP(MV) No.1952/2003 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, is in appeal aggrieved by the Award dated 18.02.2014. 2. The respondent in this appeal filed OP(MV) stating that while he was driving his car, a motorcycle ridden by the 2[nd] respondent in OP(MV) in a rash and negligent manner went to the wrong side attempting to overtake a lorry. The respondent kept his car on the extreme left side but the sudden jerk caused, resulted in grievous injuries to the vertebral disc of the respondent. The respondent sought a total compensation of ₹10 lakhs. The rider and owner of the motorcycle remained _ex parte_ . The appellant-insurer filed written statement denying the maintainability of the OP(MV), **MACA.No.1676 OF 2015(F)** **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** age, monthly income, nature of injuries and extent of disability of the respondent. The appellant urged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent himself. 3. Before the Tribunal, the respondent marked Exts.A1 to A16 documents and examined PWs 1 and 2. There was no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the respondents. 4. After appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal awarded an amount of ₹6,28,590/- to the respondent under the following heads:- |**Sl.** **No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount** **Claimed**|**Amount** **Awarded**|**Basics – vital details in a** **nut shell**| |---|---|---|---|---| |1.|Loss of earning|1,62,328/-|1,27,890/-|14,700/30=490/- 490 x 261d| |2.|Partial loss of earning|Nil|Nil|Not claimed| |3.|Transport to hospital|1,200/-|1,200/-|Amount claimed and awarded| |4.|Extra nourishment|1,000/-|1,000/-|Amount claimed and awarded| |5.|Damage to clothing and other articles|Nil|5,00/-|Reasonable estimate made| |6.|Medical expenses|15,000/-|12,000/-|No medical bills are produced| **MACA.No.1676 OF 2015(F)** **:4:** |**Sl.** **No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount** **Claimed**|**Amount** **Awarded**|**Basics – vital details in a** **nut shell**| |---|---|---|---|---| |7.|Expenses of a by stander|18,000/-|Nil|Not awarded| |8.|Compensation for pain and suffering|1,00,000/-|30,000/-|Reasonable estimate made| |9.|Compensation for continuing or permanent disability|7,40,000/-|3,42,000/-|10,000 x 12 x 19 x 15/100| |10.|Compensation for loss of earning power|10,00,000/-|Nil|Not awarded| |11|Compensation for loss of amenities in life|2,00,000/-|1,14,000/-|1/3 of 3,42,000/-| |**TOTAL**||**22,37,528**|**6,28,590/-**|With interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition (04/12/2003) till realization.| |**Claim is limited to ₹10,00,000/-**||||| Simple interest of 9% per annum from the date of OP(MV) was also ordered. The appellant-insurer was directed to make the payment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that though there is an FIR, the respondent did not produce Final Report laid by the police, in order to prove negligence of the rider of the bike. The quantum of compensation awarded is highly excessive. The respondent being a Doctor working in a Government Hospital, in fact, there is no loss of income or future income suffered by the respondent due to the accident. **MACA.No.1676 OF 2015(F)** **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** The Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 9 instead of 15. Towards future prospects, the Tribunal could have taken only 50% of the salary to be counted for notional income. Similarly, ₹1,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for compensation for loss of amenities is also excessive. The respondent did not produce any medical bills, but the Tribunal awarded ₹12,000/- towards medical expenses. Similarly, the Tribunal granted loss of earning for a duration of 261 days, which is on a higher side. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is therefore liable to be reduced to a considerable extent, contended the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant. 6. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant. 7. The first argument raised by the Standing Counsel is that the Final Report laid down in the criminal case related to the road traffic accident was not produced and therefore the Tribunal ought not have arrived at the conclusion of **MACA.No.1676 OF 2015(F)** **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and imposed liability on the appellant. On a perusal of the Award, it can be seen that the Tribunal has considered Ext.A1 copy of FIR/FIS in Crime No.311/2001 of Kazhakkoottam Police Station. The Tribunal also perused Ext.A2 certified copy of scene mahazar. Ext.A16 copy of wound certificate issued from the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram was also taken note of. It is on the basis of the said documents produced and in the absence of any contra evidence, that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the 2[nd] respondent-driver in OP(MV) was negligent. This Court do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding for the only reason that Final Report was not produced in the case. 8. Regarding quantum of compensation, the learned Standing Counsel argued that the respondent being in Government service, there was no loss of future income. It was also argued that for the loss of income to be considered for post retirement period (in this case, after respondent **MACA.No.1676 OF 2015(F)** **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** attaining 56 years), only half the salary should have been taken into consideration and instead of that, the Tribunal took ₹10,000/- as notional monthly income. The learned Standing Counsel also stated that since the respondent will not lose his income from salary up to the age of 56 years, the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier 9 for the purpose of calculating disability benefits. 9. Though at the first blush the arguments appear to be attractive, going to the specifics, it will be seen that the amount of compensation for continuing disability of ₹3,42,000/- arrived at by the Tribunal is not excessive. It is well settled that for the purpose of calculating compensation for disability resulting in loss of earning power, provision should be made for adding future prospects to the income. In this case, the respondent being at the age of 38 years at the time of accident, provision for enhancement by 50% to the monthly salary has to be made. The respondent was receiving monthly salary of ₹14,700/-. Adding 50% towards **MACA.No.1676 OF 2015(F)** **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** future prospects, the notional monthly income will be ₹22,050/-. The Tribunal has assessed the notional monthly income at ₹10,000/- only. The multiplier 15 taken by the Tribunal appears to be incorrect. As there is no loss of income to the respondent till the age of 56 years, the proper multiplier will be 9 only. But, even then, if the notional monthly income is taken as ₹22,050/- as indicated above, the respondent will be eligible to more or less the same amount awarded by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is warranted in the amount of compensation for disability ₹3,42,000/-, arrived at by the Tribunal. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount of compensation towards loss of amenities of ₹1,14,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. It is to be noted that the respondent was an Assistant Insurance Medical Officer in service. The respondent had to take leave from 05.11.2001 to 10.10.2002, almost for one year for **MACA.No.1676 OF 2015(F)** **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** recuperation after the accident. The accident resulted in 15% physical disability also. In the circumstances, it cannot be stated that ₹1,14,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of amenities is excessive. 11. The learned Standing Counsel's other major contentions are that the disability was certified only by one Doctor and no medical bills were produced by the respondent, warranting an award of ₹12,000/- towards medical expenses. The fact that disability is assessed only by one Doctor is no reason to reject a claim of disability. Records would show that Ext.A13 disability certificate is issued from Department of Orthopaedics, Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. The Doctor was examined as PW2. In the absence of any contra evidence, the Tribunal was justified in relying on Ext.A13 to decide the disability aspect. It is to be noted that though Ext.A13 showed disability of 19%, the Tribunal has assessed functional disability at 15% only. This Court finds no reason to interfere **MACA.No.1676 OF 2015(F)** **==> picture [30 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** with the said findings. 12. As regards medical expenses of ₹12,000/awarded by the Tribunal, it is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in _**Kajal v. Jagdish Chand** [2020_ _(1) KLT 743(SC)]_ has held that limiting the amount of medical expenses only to the bills which have been paid in the name of the claimant, would not be reasonable. In this case, there is no dispute with regard to the hospitalisation of the respondent and the long period taken for recuperation. The award of ₹12,000/- towards medical expenses therefore cannot be treated as excessive. For all the above reasons, the appeal filed by the insurer is devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks/17/06/2020