Parish. P. v. Varghese A.L. and United India Insurance Co., Ltd. (MACA No. 205 of 2023)

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1945 ``` ## `MACA NO. 205 OF 2023` ``` [AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 14.11.2022 IN OP(MV)NO.357/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA] ``` ## `APPELLANT/PETITIONER:` ``` PARISH. P., AGED 24, S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, THUNDUPARAMBU, KAROOR, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688 561. ``` ``` BY ADV B.PRAMOD ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1VARGHESE. A.L., AGED 38, S/O LOUISE, ARESSERIL HOUSE, ARTHUNKAL. P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA – 688 530. 2UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., MICRO OFFICE, S.L. PURAM.P.O., KANJIKKUZHY, ALAPPUZHA – 688523. ``` ``` BY ADV RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 205 OF 2023 ``` ``` -2- ``` ## `JUDGMENT` ``` The appellant was grievously injured in a road accident on 30.10.2015 - when the goods vehicle being driven by him, was collided with another one, driven in a rash and negligent ``` ``` manner. He had to undergo long treatment, ``` ``` including as an inpatient; and thereupon, filed ``` ``` OP(MV)No.357/2017 before the Motor Accidents ``` ``` Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha (‘Tribunal’, for ``` ``` short), seeking compensation of an amount of ``` ``` Rs.51,87,000/-; but which has been allowed only ``` ``` to a sum of Rs.15,11,101/-. He assails the ``` ``` compensation as being inadequate. ``` ``` 2.Inresponse,Sri.RinnyStephen ``` ``` Chamaparambil – learned Standing Counsel for Insurance Company, argued that the computations adopted by the Tribunal, in arriving at the ``` ``` MACA NO. 205 OF 2023 ``` ``` -3- ``` ``` compensation, are without error, particularly because it has granted much more under many of the heads, than what has been asked for by the appellant. He thus prayed that this Appeal be dismissed. ``` ``` 3.I have considered the afore rival ``` ``` submissions, on the touchstone of the evidence on record, which I have analyzed very carefully. ``` ``` 4.The pleadings and evidence on record show that the appellant claimed that he was a professional driver, earning Rs.25,000/- per month. He had tried to prove his projected income through various documents, including ``` ``` Exts.A20 to A23, which were all communications ``` ``` from either the Kerala Public Service ``` ``` Commission, or from other Departments, to show ``` ``` that he would have obtained employment as a motor mechanic. However, the only manner in ``` ``` which he tried to prove his actual income at the ``` ``` MACA NO. 205 OF 2023 ``` ``` -4- ``` ``` time of the accident, was by producing Ext.A24 - which is the Salary Certificate issued by a private limited company; but, as rightly found by the learned Tribunal, he has neither proved it properly, nor did he cite any witness to establish its worth. Obviously, the learned Tribunal would have done nothing more than to have fixed his notional income, which it has done, adopting the figure Rs.11,000/-, more than what has been authorized inRamachandrappa v. ``` ``` Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance ``` ``` Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] . ``` ``` 5.InRamachandrappa (supra), the Hon’ble ``` ``` Supreme Court has postulated that, even in the case of a person who is a ‘Coolie’, or one with an unascertainable income, in the year 2015 – ``` ``` when the accident occurred – the minimum figure ``` ``` to be reckoned is Rs.10,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal has taken Rs.11,000/-, finding ``` ``` MACA NO. 205 OF 2023 ``` ``` -5- ``` ``` that the appellant’s avocation can be safely taken to be that of a driver. While doing so, though not so specifically stated, it has been guided by the further judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Rajani v. Oriental Insurance ``` ``` Company Limited [2022 (5) KLT OnLine 1012 (SC)]. ``` ``` I cannot, therefore, find the notional income adopted by the Tribunal to be, in any manner, in ``` ``` error. ``` ``` 6.That said, however, it is on record that ``` ``` the appellant was only 24 years old at the time of the accident and that he suffered 40% ``` ``` disability, particularly to his leg, which may incapacitate him from working as a professional ``` ``` driver in future. In such perspective, the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited [(2014) 2 SCC 735], Vijay Kumar Rastogi v. Uttar Pradesh State ``` ``` MACA NO. 205 OF 2023 ``` ``` -6- ``` `Roadways Transport Corporation [AIR 2018 SC 819], Lalan D @ Lal and Another v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [AIR 2020 SC 4508], Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Trans. Corpn. Ltd` . `[2020 ACJ 2159] and Satheesh E. v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Others [(2022) SCC OnLine 1828], would come into play, whereby, future prospects as authorized by National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662)] will become eligible. It is undisputed that, as per Pranay Sethi (supra), in the case of a person who was only 24 years old at the time of the accident, the future prospects eligible is 40%. 7. In the afore view, the notional income of the appellant will have to be added with the eligible future prospects, but this has been omitted by the learned Tribunal. This will certainly require to be corrected.` ``` MACA NO. 205 OF 2023 ``` ``` -7- ``` ``` 8.That said, I notice that the learned Tribunal has awarded sufficient compensation ``` ``` under various other heads, including for “Pain ``` ``` and Suffering” and “Loss of Amenities and ``` ``` Enjoyment in Life” at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- ``` ``` and Rs.90,000/-, respectively. Even though the ``` ``` medical records show that the appellant has ``` ``` suffered very grievous injuries, I do not think ``` ``` that any escalation requires to be granted to the amounts now awarded by the learned Tribunal, ``` ``` even though Ext.X1 – Medical Board Certificate ``` ``` records his “Permanent Disability” to be 40%, as ``` ``` has also been reckoned by the Tribunal. ``` ``` In the afore circumstances, this Appeal is ``` ``` partly awarded in the following manner: ``` ``` (a)The compensationfor “Permanent Disability”is enhanced to Rs.13,30,560/- ``` ``` (Rupees thirteen lakhs thirty thousand five ``` ``` MACA NO. 205 OF 2023 ``` ``` -8- ``` ``` hundred and sixty only), reckoning the notional ``` ``` income of the appellant to be Rs.11,000/-, as ``` ``` correctly found by the learned Tribunal and ``` ``` adding 40% future prospects to it, retaining his ``` ``` percentile of disability to be ‘40’, as certified in Ext.X1 – Certificate. ``` ``` (b) In all other heads, the compensation ``` ``` granted by the Tribunal will remain intact. ``` ``` Consequently, the appellant will be at full ``` ``` liberty to recover the compensation, as enhanced ``` ``` by this Court, from the Insurance Company, along ``` ``` with interest at the rate of 8%, as awarded by ``` ``` the Tribunal, from the date of claim until it is ``` ``` recovered.He will also be entitled to ``` ``` proportionate costs on the enhanced amount as ordered by the Tribunal. ``` ``` In view of the afore, the amount as fixed ``` ``` above shall be deposited by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal, within a period of ``` ``` MACA NO. 205 OF 2023 ``` ``` -9- ``` ``` two months from the date of receipt of a copy this judgment. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN ``` ``` akv ``` ``` JUDGE ```