High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-11-27Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation with dire...

Nissamudeen K H Karimangalkarottu v. Ansar Panattil House & The National Insurance Company Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA No.3392/2015

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Kauser Edappagath
Judgment Date: 2021-11-27
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The appellant is entitled to an additional compensation of ₹1,10,400. The 2nd respondent insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest and proportionate costs within three months from receipt of the judgment copy.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation with directions for deposit within three months

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Nissamudeen K H Karimangalkarottu

Respondents

Ansar Panattil House, Kanjiramattom P.O., Ambaloor-680 315
The National Insurance Company Ltd. Kottayam-686 001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Philip T. Varghese
• Smt. Achu Subha Abraham
• Smt. K.R. Monisha
• Sri Thomas T. Varghese

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Rajesh Thomas
• Sri Lal George

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal disposed by a single judge of the Kerala High Court. The appellant, Nissamudeen K H Karimangalkarottu, challenged the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for injuries suffered in a road accident on 4 November 2012, when an automobile, driven rashly, struck his auto-rickshaw. The Tribunal awarded ₹2,78,500 in total compensation under heads including loss of earnings, transport, nourishment, medicines, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, and loss of earning capacity, while noting the car was insured with the respondent insurer. The appellant contended that the quantum under each head was too low and pressed for reassessment based on the Supreme Court’s Ramachandrappa dictum, which permits fixing notional income at a higher figure and calculating loss of earnings for a six-month period. The insurer argued that reliance on Ext. X1 (disability certificate showing 11.2% disability) requires medical corroboration since the doctor was not examined. On hearing, the High Court increased several heads: notional income reassessed at ₹9,500 per month with six months of earnings; bystander expenses raised to ₹8,000; pain and sufferings to ₹40,000; loss of amenities to ₹40,000; and comprehensive reassessment of loss of earning capacity to ₹1,36,800 with a multiplier of 15, accepting 8% disability as reasonable. The court allowed the appeal and directed payment of an additional ₹1,10,400 within three months, with interest and costs.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 3 SCC 236

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal’s quantum under each head is too low. Notional income should be fixed at ₹9,500 per month as per the Supreme Court’s Ramachandrappa dictum, with earnings calculated for six months. He seeks enhancement of several heads: loss of earnings, bystander expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and loss of earning capacity, supported by 11.2% disability Ext. X1 (though without doctor’s examination). The appellant argues the disability certificate and the injury's gravity justify higher compensation, and that the overall loss should be recalculated accordingly.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer defends the Tribunal’s computation, stressing the lack of medical examination of Ext. X1 to prove 11.2% disability and contends there was no documentary proof of the appellant’s employment as a conductor, which would affect loss of earnings. The policy with the insurer remains in force, and liability is not disputed; no other material change to the tribunal’s findings is urged besides opposing the higher notional income and disability reliance without medical corroboration.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.	(2011) 3 SCC 236	Positive	Cited to justify increasing notional income to ₹9,500 per month and calculating loss of earnings for six months.

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 Nissamudeen K H Karimangalkarottu v. Ansar Panattil House & The National Insurance Company 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 DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH** **SATURDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021/6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 MACA NO. 3392 OF 2015** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 60/2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS** **TRIBUNAL ,KOTTAYAM** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** NISSAMUDEEN K H KARIMANGALKAROTTU, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, MIDAYIKUNNU P.O. BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM SMT.K.R.MONISHA SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** 1 ANSAR PANATTIL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O., AMBALLOOR-680 315. 2 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. KOTTAYAM-686 001. BY ADVS.SRI.RAJESH THOMAS SRI.LAL GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA No.3392/2015 -:2:- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 27[th] day of November, 2021 The claimant at the Tribunal is the appellant. He challenges the quantum of compensation awarded to him vide the impugned award. 2. The claimant met with an accident on 4/11/2012 at 10.30 p.m. He was driving the autorickshaw bearing Regn.No.KL41/ 2953. At that time, car bearing Regn.No.KL 39/D 1485 driven and owned by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the autorickshaw driven by the claimant and he sustained injuries. The 2[nd] respondent is the insurer of the car. The claimant sustained injury including type II open comminuted mid shaft fracture. He was hospitalised for a total period of seven days. He claimed a total compensation of `5,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded `2,78,500/. Dissatisfied with the said award, the claimant has come up in appeal. 3. I have heard Smt.Shruthi Sara Jacob, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Lal George, the learned MACA No.3392/2015 -:3:- standing counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent insurance company. 4. At the time of the incident, the claimant was driving the autorickshaw. However, he contended that he was employed as a conductor in KSRTC bus. But, no document has been produced to substantiate the same. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car who has been arrayed as the 1[st] respondent. The said finding is not under challenge. Admittedly the car is insured with the 2[nd] respondent and the policy was in force at the time of the accident. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of `2,78,500/- under the following different heads: ||Head|Amount claimed|Amount awarded| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earnings|`48,000/-|`24,000/-| |2|Partial loss of earnings|`9,000/-|Nil| |3|Transport to hospital|`1,500/-|`1,500/-| |4|Extra nourishment|`1,500/-|`1,500/-| |5|Damage to clothing and articles|`1,500/-|`500/-| |6|Bystander expenses|`12,000/-|`6,000/-| MACA No.3392/2015 ## -:4:- |7|Medicines and treatment|`80,000/-|`1,03,500/-| |---|---|---|---| |8|Pain and sufferings|`50,000/-|`30,000/-| |9|Loss of amenities and inconvenience in life|`1,00,000/-|`25,000/-| |10|Loss of earning capacity|`3,00,000/-|`86,400/-| |11|For permanent disability|`2,50,000/-|Nil| |12|Damage caused to autorickshaw|`20,000/-|Nil| ||Total|`8,73,500 limited to `5,00,000/-|`2,78,400/- rounded to `2,78,500/-| 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under each head is very low. I will deal with the amount awarded by the Tribunal under each head. Under the head “Loss of Earnings”, Tribunal awarded `24,000/-. In the absence of documentary evidence to show that the claimant was working as a conductor, Tribunal took the notional income @`6,000/- per month. Applying the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in _**Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.**_ [(2011) 3 SCC 236], I am of the view that it is just and proper that the notional income is fixed @`9,500/- per month. Similarly, I am of MACA No.3392/2015 -:5:- the view that the loss of earning has to be calculated for 6 months. Thus under this head, the claimant is entitled to a sum of `57,000/- The amount awarded under the heads 2 to 5 does not call for any interference. Only `6,000/- was granted towards bystander expenses. I am of the view that it has to be enhanced to `8,000/-. The amount granted towards medicines and treatment under the head 7 does not call for any interference inasmuch as the entire amount as per bill was granted. Under the head “Pain and Sufferings”, Tribunal awarded `30,000/- only. The claim was `50,000/-. Considering the nature of injury sustained by the claimant and the days of hospitalisation, I am of the view that it can be enhanced to `40,000/-. Similarly, the loss of amenities and inconvenience in life can also be enhanced to `40,000/- from `25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head “Loss of Earning Capacity” is very low. The counsel submitted that permanent disability was assessed @8% only whereas Ext.X1 disability certificate produced would show that he had a permanent disability of 11.2%. The learned counsel for the insurer submitted MACA No.3392/2015 -:6:- that to prove the disability certificate, doctor was not examined. I am of the view that without examining the doctor, no reliance can be placed on Ext.X1. The Tribunal has, however, taken 8% as permanent disability which according to me appears very reasonable. I have already found that notional income has to be fixed @`9,500/- per month. Accordingly, the amount awarded under the head 'Loss of Earning Capacity” has to be reassessed. So taking the multiplier as 15 and loss of earning capacity as 8%, the total amount under this head would come to `1,36,800/(9500x12x15x8%). Hence, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under each head has to be reassessed as follows: ||Head|Amount claimed|Amount awarded by the Tribunal|Amount reassessed|Difference| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earnings|`48,000/-|`24,000/-|`57,000/-|`33,000/-| |2|Partial loss of earnings|`9,000/-|Nil|Not interfered|--| |3|Transport to hospital|`1,500/-|`1,500/-|“|--| |4|Extra nourishment|`1,500/-|`1,500/-|“|–| MACA No.3392/2015 ## -:7:- |5|Damage to clothing and articles|`1,500/-|`500/-|“|--| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |6|Bystander expenses|`12,000/-|`6,000/-|`8,000/-|`2,000/-| |7|Medicines and treatment|`80,000/-|`1,03,500/-|Not interfered|--| |8|Pain and sufferings|`50,000/-|`30,000/-|`40,000/-|`10,000/-| |9|Loss of amenities and inconvenience in life|`1,00,000/-|`25,000/-|`40,000/-|`15,000/-| |10|Loss of earning capacity|`3,00,000/-|`86,400/-|`1,36,800/-|`50,400/-| |11|For permanent disability|`2,50,000/-|Nil|Nil|--| |12|Damage caused to autorickshaw|`20,000/-|Nil|Nil|--| ||Total|`8,73,500 limited to `5,00,000/-|`2,78,400/- rounded to `2,78,500/-|`2,81,800/-|`1,10,400/-| Thus, the appellant is entitled to an additional compensation of `1,10,400/- (Rupees One lakh ten thousand and four hundred only). The 2[nd] respondent is directed to deposit the said amount along with interest and proportionate costs as MACA No.3392/2015 -:8:- ordered by the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appeal is allowed as above. **Sd/DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE** ## **Rp**