High Court of KeralaDivision BenchAppeal allowed; enhanced compensation; insurer ...
Noushad K.A. v. M. Ashokan, Ayoob Khan and National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.2995 of 2008
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- T. R. Ramachandran Nair
- K. P. Jyothindranath
- Judgment Date
- 2015-06-22
- Court Decision / Holding
- The appeal is allowed. The court re-fixes compensation, holding the appellant’s monthly income at Rs. 4,000, disability at 100%, and the multiplier at 18, resulting in a revised total of Rs. 16,60,450. The enhanced disability component is valued at Rs. 9,00,000 (disability head), with other heads recalculated (loss of earnings, treatment, transport, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, attendant charges, extra nourishment, disfigurement/marriage prospects, bystander’s expenses, and future treatment). The Insurance Company is directed to meet the liability and deposit the enhanced amount, less any sum already deposited, within three months. The enhanced amount shall attract interest at 9% from the petition date until realisation; future treatment costs will not carry interest. The appellant may withdraw 50% of the total enhanced amount immediately; the balance to be deposited in a nationalised bank for five years; interest on the fixed deposit may be withdrawn. No costs consequence on the appeal.
- Final Disposition
- Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation; insurer liable to meet enhanced amount; deposit within three months; 9% interest; partial withdrawal permitted; no costs in appeal.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Noushad K.A.
Respondents
- M. Ashokan
- Ayoob Khan
- National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri K.K. Mohamed Ravuf
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri Siraj Karoly
- • Sri M.A. George
Case Synopsis & Summary
The appellant, Noushad K.A., a sawmill worker, suffered total paraplegia after an accident on 10 February 2003 when he was knocked down by auto rickshaw KL-7/Z-5943 while a pedestrian on the Aluva-Perumbavoor KSRTC road. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, awarded Rs. 5,25,150 in compensation, which the appellant challenges as inadequate, focusing on the quantum rather than negligence. The appellant’s medical history shows spinal cord contusion with 90% disability, bed-ridden status, urinary and bowel incontinence, and extensive inpatient treatment spanning 120 days across multiple hospitals plus ongoing Ayurvedic and physiotherapy care. He had a monthly pre-accident income of about Rs. 3,875; the Tribunal had used Rs. 2,000 as income. The appellant argues for higher income, inclusion of future prospects, and higher multiplier, citing Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram (2011) and Sadiq v. United India (2014). The High Court focuses on quantum, not negligence. After considering the evidence and authorities, the court increases the monthly income to Rs. 4,000, fixes 100% disability, and uses a multiplier of 18. It recalculates several heads of claim (loss of earnings, treatment, transport, pain, loss of amenities, attendant charges, etc.) and arrives at a revised total of Rs. 16,60,450, with a substantial award for disability at Rs. 9,00,000, along with future treatment provisions. The insurer remains liable, with enhanced compensation carrying 9% interest and specific withdrawal and deposit terms. The appeal is allowed.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
Appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate for total paraplegia and lifelong impairment. He was earning about Rs. 3,875 per month but the Tribunal fixed Rs. 2,000; relying on Ramachandrappa (2011) and Sadiq (2014), counsel contends that wages for unorganized sector workers can be higher and future prospects may be considered. He has 90% disability with bed-ridden status and requires constant attendant care; ongoing treatment and future medical expenses warrant a higher quantum under heads including loss of earnings, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, bystander’s charges, and future treatment. He argues for fixing monthly income at Rs. 4,000 with a multiplier of 18 to reflect the degree of disability and the appellant’s prospects, and for a re-assessment of damages to reflect care costs and ongoing treatment.
Contentions of Respondents
Respondents contend that the Tribunal’s calculations were not legally defective given the lack of definitive earnings evidence; the issue of future prospects in unorganized sectors is under consideration by a larger bench, so there is no fetter to adopt a cautious approach. They argue that the insurer’s liability should be determined on the evidence before the Tribunal and that the enhancement should not be based on conjecture. The insurer is prepared to meet the liability and deposit the enhanced amount within the prescribed time, subject to the court’s directions regarding interest and withdrawal.
Cited Precedents (4)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. | [(2011) 13 SCC 236] | Positive | Cited to support the principle that courts may determine income in unorganized-sector cases and consider future prospects within limits; used to justify adjusting the appellant’s wage figure. |
| Sadiq v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. | [(2014) 2 SCC 735] | Positive | Referenced for discussion on future prospects and the evolving stance; acknowledged that larger bench guidance was pending, but used to support cautious consideration of future prospects. |
| Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh | [2003 (1) KLT 115 (SC)] | Positive | Cited as an authority that there is no fetter on the tribunal’s power to grant proper compensation. |
| Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh | [2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC)] | Positive | Cited for reinforcing the principle that compensation should be proper and just, supporting the court’s reconsideration of quantum in light of the disability and age. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Noushad K.A. v. M. Ashokan, Ayoob Khan and National 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 T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH**
**MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2015/1ST ASHADHA, 1937**
**MACA.No. 2995 of 2008 ( ) --------------------------**
## **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 672/2003 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,PERUMBAVOOR DATED 21-04-2008 APPELLANT/PETITIONER:**
**----------------------------------------------**
**NOUSHAD K.A. 26 YEARS S/O. ALIYAR, KAMBUNKAL HOUSE, KADAVOOR.P.O.**
**BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF**
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:**
**----------------------------------------------------**
## **1. M.T.ASHOKAN**
**MUNDAKKAKUDY HOUSE, MARAMPILLY.P.O, NORTH EZHIPPRAM.**
**2. AYOOB KHAN, S/O. SAIDU MOHAMMED, THAZHATHAN HOUSE, EZHIPPURAM, MARAMPILLY.P.O KANAMPARAMBU KARA.**
**3. NATIONAL INSURANE CO. LTD., KOLENCHERRY BRANCH, POST BOX NO. 6 MEDICAL MISSION JUNCTION, KOLENCHERY.P.O.**
**R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE**
**THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**shg/**
## **T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.**
**- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.2995 of 2008**
**- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22[nd] day of June, 2015**
## **J U D G M E N T**
## **Ramachandran Nair, J.**
The appellant who is suffering from total paraplegia is before this court in this appeal aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation. The total amount of compensation claimed is Rs.8,39,500/- and the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.5,25,150/-. Since we are only on the quantum of compensation, no other questions need be considered including the finding regarding negligence.
2. The appellant, was working in a sawmill at the time of accident and while he was walking through the Aluva - Perumbavoor K.S.R.T.C road as a pedestrian on 10.2.2003 he was knocked down by an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KL-7/Z-5943. The insurance company is saddled with the liability to meet the awarded amount.
3. A short narration of the injuries sustained,
M.A.C.A.No.2995 of 2008
**-2-**
treatment undertaken and the present position of the appellant may have to be made for assessing the compensation. He has sustained the following injuries:
1. Weakness of both lower limbs.
2. Compression fracture to T12 vertebra.
3. Fracture to 12[th] rib left. 4. Spinal cord contusion.
Going by Ext.A5 Accident Register Cum Wound Certificate issued from the Lisie Hospital, Cochin there was spinal cord contusion. The appellant was treated in different hospitals. Initially he was admitted in Sanjoe Hospital, Perumbavoor on 10.2.2003 and was removed to Lisie Hospital, Ernakulam for better treatment. He continued there up to 14.2.2003. On the said date he was admitted to the Brain & Spine Centre, Vaikom wherein he was treated up to 8.3.2003 as an inpatient. From 18.3.2003 to 3.6.2003 he was treated in Chazhikattu Hospital, Thodupuzha and from 14.8.2003 onwards he started Ayurvedic treatment in another hospital where he was treated till 1.9.2003. It is the case that he had to continue the treatment thereafter and physiotherapy is
M.A.C.A.No.2995 of 2008
**-3-**
also continuing. Therefore the total period of inpatient treatment is 120 days. The disability certificate issued by the Medical Board of the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Thodupuzha shows the percentage of disability as 90. It is recorded that he is suffering from complete paraplegia with urinary and bowel incontinence.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant, by inviting our attention to the condition of the appellant submitted that he is completely laid up and is unable to move out from his bed and requires a service of a bystander constantly. It is submitted that he was unmarried at the time of accident and therefore there is total loss of prospects of marriage. We have noticed from the award that he was personally brought before the Tribunal in ambulance and the learned Tribunal had seen the appellant and it is recorded in the award that the patient was laid up complete paraplegia with bedsores and he was not able to sit without the help of bystanders. Therefore it is a case where we will have to take the physical frame of the appellant in such a stage that
M.A.C.A.No.2995 of 2008
**-4-**
he is unable to move out and is completely bedridden. The medical certificate describes the position as total paraplegia. The improvements in his condition is therefore bleak and hoping for the best he is undergoing ayurvedic treatment as well as physiotherapy.
5. Going by the pleadings of the appellant, he was working in a sawmill and was earning Rs.3,875/- per month, but the learned Tribunal has arrived at the monthly income only at Rs.2,000/-. It is the case of the learned counsel for the appellant that documentary evidence may not be available for such type of employment and therefore a reasonable amount ought have been fixed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that in the absence of any evidence the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be said to be faulty.
6. In this context the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon two judgments of the Apex court in **Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236]** and **Syed**
M.A.C.A.No.2995 of 2008
**-5-**
**Sadiq v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2014) 2 SCC 735]** . In the first decision as regards a daily labourer in which the accident occurred in 2004 the Apex court held that wages taken at Rs.4,500/- per month cannot be said to be exorbitant. In the latter case in the case of a vegetable vendor, who was aged 24 the monthly income was taken at Rs.6,500/- where the accident occurred in the year 2008. Of course there is no fetter on the power of the court to fix it properly. Learned counsel also vehemently sought for fixing the quantum by taking the future prospects also. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the question whether in respect of workers in unorganized sectors there can be addition for reckoning the future prospects is a matter pending before the larger bench of the Apex court.
7. After considering the pleas from the learned counsel on both sides, we are of the view that his monthly income can be fixed at Rs.4,000/- and it will not be exorbitant and we adopt the same. The multiplier will be 18
## M.A.C.A.No.2995 of 2008
**-6-**
and the functional disability will be 100% and the compensation under this head will be
Rs.4000x12x18=Rs.8,64,000/-, which we round off to Rs.9,00,000/- as a multiplicand is only at Rs.4000/- per month.
8. The Tribunal has granted compensation in the following manner:
|**Head of Claim**|**Amount awarded in**<br>**Rs.**|
|---|---|
|Loss of earnings|20000|
|Treatment expenses|64700|
|Transportation expenses|5000|
|Damage to clothings|250|
|Pain and suffering|25000|
|Loss of amenities|20000|
|Attendant's charges|10000|
|Extra nourishment|3000|
|Disability|367200|
|Disfiguration and loss of<br>marriage prospects|10000|
|Total|525150|
9. It is clear that the assessment of damages will not
be in tune with the physical frame of the victim and his incapacities, disabilities, loss of enjoyment as well as other
M.A.C.A.No.2995 of 2008
**-7-**
factors like amount to be spent for his future treatment, which have not been considered in a proper manner. The vehement plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that he will require the constant assistance of a bystander and a reasonable amount will have to be fixed accordingly. It is also submitted that for loss of prospects of marriage including disfiguration only Rs.10,000/- was granted which requires enhancement properly. It is further highlighted that for pain and suffering undergone by him and which is continuing throughout, a reasonable compensation will have to be granted. Coupled with the same, it is submitted that, there is total loss of enjoyment of life and pleasures of life which also require fixation of proper amount. As regards the future treatment also the learned counsel submitted that the court will have to anticipate the difficulties in future and for covering the expenses towards medical expenses, a suitable amount will have to be fixed. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that this Court may have to fix the
M.A.C.A.No.2995 of 2008
**-8-**
quantum after considering the total amount claimed by the appellant.
10. In the matter of awarding compensation, going by the judgments of the Apex court in **Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh** [ **2003 (1) KLT 115 (SC)]** and **Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh [2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC)]** there is no fetter on the power of the Tribunal and this Court to grant compensation which is proper and just. Therefore in a matter like this where the appellant had suffered injuries at the young age of 21 and is completely laid up, we will have to assess the compensation accordingly.
11. Therefore we re-fix the compensation in the following manner:
|**Head of Claim**|**Amount awarded in Rs.**|
|---|---|
|Loss of earnings 4000x10|40000|
|Treatment expenses|64700|
|Transportation expenses|7500|
|Damage to clothings|250|
|Pain and suffering|100000|
|Loss of amenities|100000|
M.A.C.A.No.2995 of 2008
**-9-**
|**Head of Claim**|**Amount awarded in Rs.**|
|---|---|
|Hospital attendant's<br>charges during the<br>treatment period|120x150 18000|
|Extra nourishment|5000|
|Compensation for<br>disability|4000x12x18=8,64,000<br>Round off to 900000|
|Disfiguration and loss of<br>marriage prospects|75000|
|Bystander's expenses<br>(continuingand future)|250000|
|Future treatment|100000|
|**Total**|16,60,450<br>(Rupees sixteen lakhs<br>sixty thousand four<br>hundred and fifty<br>only)|
The appellant will have to pay additional court fee for the amount granted by this Court.
The enhanced compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9% from the date of petition till realisation and we hold that the Insurance Company will be liable to meet the liability also and we direct them to deposit the amount of compensation, less the amount already deposited, before the Tribunal within a period of three months. As far as the amount granted towards future treatment it will not carry
## M.A.C.A.No.2995 of 2008
**-10-**
interest. Out of the total compensation to be deposited by the Insurance Company along with interest fixed by this Court, we permit the appellant to immediately withdraw 50% and the balance amount will be deposited in a nationalised bank, for which, we fix the term as five years. We also permit the appellant to withdraw the interest portion on the fixed deposit from time to time. If any situation warrants modification of the above condition, the appellant will be free to approach the Tribunal itself.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs in the appeal.
Sd/-
**T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE**
Sd/-
## **K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH**
**JUDGE**
//True copy//
P.A. TO JUDGE
shg/