Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAppeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation a...

P. Chandran Asari v. Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram; Kerala State Insurance Department

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 960 OF 2009

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. Dias
Judgment Date
2021-07-26
Court Decision / Holding
The appeal is allowed in part. The court enhances the compensation by Rs. 10,120 beyond the Tribunal’s award, fixes an interest rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition to the date of deposit (deducting 116 days for delay), and directs the 3rd respondent/insurer to deposit the enhanced amount with interest and costs within two months. The Tribunal is instructed to disburse the enhanced amount in due course. The liability of the insurer to indemnify the owner is reaffirmed, and the revised notional income, based on Ramachandrappa, is used to re-calculate losses.
Final Disposition
Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation awarded and directed to be deposited by insurer with interest and costs; Tribunal to disburse the enhanced amount.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • P. Chandran Asari

Respondents

  • The Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, P.M.G., Thiruvananthapuram
  • Rajan Babu, Deputy Superintendent of Police (deleted from party array)
  • The Kerala State Insurance Department (insurer)
  • Additional 4th respondent (insurer)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri K.T. Shyamkumar
  • • Sri R. Narendran Nair

Counsels for Respondents

  • • The Government Pleader (for respondents 1 and 3)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala case arises from MACA No. 960 of 2009, challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram’s partial award in OP(MV) No.1246 of 2002. The appellant, P. Chandran Asari, a carpenter, sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 24 December 2001 when his parked motorcycle was struck by an Ambassador car driven by the second respondent, who was later deleted from the party array. The 3rd respondent, the Kerala State Insurance Department, was the insurer for the offending vehicle, while the first respondent, the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, and the 4th respondent (insurer) joined the proceedings. The Tribunal awarded Rs.70,370 against the insurer, with the other respondents contesting liability and quantum. The High Court, while acknowledging the Tribunal’s liability finding (driver negligent and insurer liable), revisits the quantum of compensation. It relies on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. to determine notional income for a 2001 accident and revises the appellant’s notional earnings upward. Notably, the court modifies the loss of earnings and loss due to disability, recalculating the amount based on a higher monthly income and a 3% disability with a multiplier of 17, ultimately enhancing the total compensation by Rs.10,120 and directing payment with interest. The appeal is allowed in part, with directions to deposit the enhanced sum within two months and for the Tribunal to disburse accordingly.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Notional income doctrine for computation of motor-accident compensation (as in Ramachandrappa)
  • Multiplier principle for calculating loss of disability and earnings (age-based)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contended that the accident occurred due to negligent driving by the car driver (2nd respondent) and that the vehicle was insured, making the insurer liable for compensation. He challenged the Tribunal’s notional income and sought higher compensation, arguing that the evidence supported greater earnings and damages.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents argued disputed liability and questioned the quantum. The 3rd respondent contended lack of valid insurance could affect liability. The written statements by the 1st and 2nd respondents disputed the appellant’s age, occupation, and earnings and attributed fault to the appellant for improper parking. The insurer defended its non-liability only if no insurance existed or if policy conditions were not met.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.2011 (13) SCC 236PositiveCited to justify updating notional income for computation of compensation in motor-accident claims, leading to higher loss of earnings and disability figures.

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 P. Chandran Asari v. Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram; Kerala State Insurance Department 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 C.S.DIAS** **MONDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1943** **MACA NO. 960 OF 2009** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(MV) 1246/2002 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT** ## **CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:** P.CHANDRAN ASARI, T.C.16/621, ARCHANA,KOCHAR ROAD,JAGATHY, THYCAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR SRI.R.NARENDRAN NAIR ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1,2 & 4:** 1 THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, P.M.G., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 RAJAN BABU, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, POLICE VIGILANCE SOUTHERN RANGER OFFICE, BELL HEAVEN GARDENS,KOWADIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (DELETED) THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 9.4.2021 IN I.A.NO.1/2021 3 THE KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR. ## **OTHER PRESENT:** GP- C K PRASAD THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **MACA NO. 960 OF 2009 2** ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant was the petitioner in OP(MV) No.1246 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents before the Tribunal. 2. Pursuant to the direction of this Court on 9.4.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 the 2[nd] respondent has been deleted from the party array. 3. The facts in brief, relevant for the determination of the appeal , are: on 24.12.2001 while the appellant had parked his motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KL-01/P 7669 on the eastern side of Jagathy – Edappazhinji public road, an ambassador car bearing Reg.No.KCT-7327, (offending vehicle) driven by the 2[nd] respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the appellant who sustained injuries. The respondents 1 and 3 were the owner and the insurer of the car. The appellant was a carpenter by profession **MACA NO. 960 OF 2009 3** and earning a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. The appellant claimed compensation from the respondents, which he quantified at Rs.5,00,000/-. 4. The 1[st] respondent filed a written statement disputing the age, occupation of the appellant. His further case that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the appellant who parked the motor cycle on the wrong side of the road. The 2[nd] respondent filed a written statement reiterating the allegations in the written statement filed by the 1[st] respondent. 5. The 3[rd] respondent filed a written statement stating that the offending vehicle did not have a valid insurance coverage and hence, the 3[rd] respondent was not liable to pay the compensation. 6. The appellant filed I.A.No.125 of 2008 seeking to implead the additional 4[th] respondent, on the assertion that the car was insured with the additional 4[th] respondent. The application was allowed and the **MACA NO. 960 OF 2009 4** additional 4[th] respondent entered appearance and admitted that the offending vehicle was insured by them. 7. The appellant produced and marked Exts.A1 to A8 in evidence. The respondents did not let in any evidence. 8. The Tribunal, after evaluating the pleadings and materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part, by permitting the appellant to realize an amount of Rs.70,370/- from the additional 4[th] respondent. 9. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the petitioner is in appeal. 10. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 3 in the appeal. 11. The sole question that emerges for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just ? 12. Although the appellant had contended that the **MACA NO. 960 OF 2009 5** accident was caused on account of the negligence of the 2[nd] respondent, who drew the offending vehicle in a negligent manner and that the car was insured with 4[th] respondent, the appellant did not produce the final report filed by the Police to prove that there was negligence on the part of the 2[nd] respondent. Nevertheless, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused by the 2[nd] respondent. Therefore, the 4[th] respondent being insurer of the 1[st] respondent, the owner of the car is liable to indemnify the 1[st] respondent of its liability to pay compensation. 13. The appellant had claimed that he was a carpenter by profession and earning a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. For want of materials to prove the income, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the appellant at Rs.2,000/- per month. 14 In _**Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., (2011 (13)**_ **MACA NO. 960 OF 2009 6** _**SCC 236),**_ the Hon’ble Supreme Court has fixed the notional income of a Coolie Worker in the year 2004 at Rs.4,500/- per month. ## **Notional Income** 15. Following the ratio in the aforecited decision, considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2001, I refix the notional income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month. ## **Loss of Earnings** 16. It is on record that the appellant was incapacitated for a period of 4 months. In view of the refixation of the notional income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month, I refix the notional income of the appellant at 12,000/- per month, i.e., an enhancement of Rs.4,000/-. ## **Loss due to disability** 17. As the appellant was 33 years of age at the time of accident, he had suffered 3% disability, the relevant **MACA NO. 960 OF 2009 7** multiplier being '17' and in view of the refixation of the notional income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month, I refix the compensation under the head loss due to disability at Rs.18,360/-, i.e., 3000x12x17x3%, instead of Rs.12,240/- awarded by the Tribunal. 18. With respect to the other heads of compensation, I find that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable and just compensation. 19. On an over all re-appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record, the law laid down in the aforecited decision, I am of the definite opinion that the appellant/petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated above, i.e an enhancement by a further amount of Rs.10,120/-, namely, Rs.4,000/- towards loss of earnings and Rs.6,120/- towards loss due to disability. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of **MACA NO. 960 OF 2009 8** Rs.10,120/- with interest at the rate of Rs.7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, after deducting the period of 116 days, i.e., the period of delay in filing the appeal and as ordered by this Court on 09.4.2021 in C.M.Appln. No1138 of 2009, and proportionate costs. The 3[rd] respondent in the appeal/Insurer/the 4[th] respondent before the Tribunal shall deposit the enhanced compensation with interest and proportionate costs before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The Tribunal shall disburse the enhanced compensation to the appellant/petitioner in accordance with law. sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** pm