Parookkaran Chandran Anoop v. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited

``` 2025:KER:25903 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S. ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 /28TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` MACA NO. 254 OF 2021 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 17.06.2020 IN OP(MV) NO.1661 OF 2018 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ``` ## `PERUMBAVOOR` ## `APPELLANT/PETITIONER:` ``` PAROOKKARAN CHANDRAN ANOOP AGED 35 YEARS S/O.PAROOKKARAN PAPPU CHANDRAN, PAROOKKARAN HOUSE, OKKAL P.O., CHELAMATTOM, PERUMBAVOOR 683 550. ``` ``` BY ADV A.N.SANTHOSH ``` ## `RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:` ``` SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED E-8, EPPIP, RUCO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITHAPURAM, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN 302022, REP.BY ITS MANAGER ``` ``` BY ADV LINTO FRANCIS ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:25903 ``` ``` MACA NO. 254 OF 2021 ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 19[th] day of March, 2025** The claimant in O.P. (M.V.) No. 1661 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, is the appellant herein. 2. The appellant, claiming to be a heavy-duty driver, met with an accident on 20.09.2018, at about 8.45 pm. While he was driving a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL40-L-6130 along the M.C. Road from north to south, at Nambilly, Okkal, a lorry bearing registration No. MH-11/M3776, driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and collided with the said motorcycle. The claimant sustained severe injuries and was immediately taken to Little Flower Hospital, Angamaly. He was later referred to Specialists Hospital, Ernakulam, where he was treated as an inpatient. 3. The claimant contended that he was earning a monthly income of Rs. 25,000/- as a driver. In support of the contention, Exts.A1 to A15 documents were produced and ``` 2025:KER:25903 ``` ``` MACA NO. 254 OF 2021 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** marked. The copy of the Insurance Policy was produced and marked as Ext.B1. The Tribunal, however, on appreciation of evidence, found that the claimants could not adduce any evidence to show that he was earning an income of Rs.25,000/- per month. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the income notionally at Rs. 11,500/- and granted the following compensation: |Sl.<br>No.|Head<br>of<br>claim<br>Compensation for|Amount<br>claimed<br>(₹.)s<br>symbol is<br>₹.₹₹|Amount<br>awarded (₹.)s|Basic – vital details<br>in nut shell| |---|---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earnings|300000|92000|Rs.11500 x 8 months| |2|Partial loss of earnings|NIL|NIL|| |3|Transport to Hospital|50000|8000|4 IP + reviews| |4|Extra nourishment|50000|31000|| |5|Medical expenses|500000|404701|Actual medical bills| |6|Pain & suffering|300000|90000|| |7|Loss of amenities etc.|300000|80000|| |8|Permanent disability|1000000|485760|Rs.11500x12x16x22<br>%| |9|Attendance charge|100000|31000|Rs.500 x 62 days| |10|Damage to clothes etc.|2000|1500|| |11|Future treatment|300000|NIL|| ||Total Claim limited to|2902,000/-<br>limited to<br>15,00,000/-|1223,961/-<br>============|| ``` 2025:KER:25903 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` MACA NO. 254 OF 2021 ``` ``` 4 ``` 4. While granting the aforesaid compensation, the Tribunal reduced the percentage of disability fixed at 28% as per Ext. A13 and revised it to 22%. Aggrieved by this, the claimant has approached this Court with the present appeal. 5. Heard Sri. A.N.Santhosh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri. Linto Francis, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. 6. During the pendency of this appeal, by order dated 18.11.2024 in I.A. No. 1 of 2024, this Court directed the constitution of a Medical Board by the Superintendent of the Taluk Hospital, Perumbavoor, to examine the appellant and forward the report. Based on the said direction, the appellant was examined on 06.12.2024, and a report was forwarded to this Court. In the report, it is noted that, due to the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant, he has sustained a permanent physical disability of 48%. 7. Based on the disability certificate, the learned counsel for the appellant contends before this Court that the appellant’s avocation has been seriously affected, and therefore, the occupational/functional disability should be ``` 2025:KER:25903 ``` ``` MACA NO. 254 OF 2021 ``` ``` 5 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** increased accordingly. As regards the income, it is pointed out that the Tribunal increased the income notionally to Rs. 11,500/-, whereas the appellant is entitled to have it fixed according to the Minimum Wages Notification issued by the State of Kerala. 8. In _**Angad Tiwari and Another v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another**_ [Civil Appeal No. 10950/2024] dated 01.10.2024, [2024 KHC 8590] the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal, while fixing the income, shall not fix it below the income below that of minimum wage. Going by the notification issued by the State of Kerala in G.O(P).No.56/2017/Fin , dated 28.04.2017, the minimum wage for a driver is fixed at Rs. 18,900/- per month. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the claimant/appellant is entitled to have the monthly income fixed at Rs. 18,900/-. 9. As regards the claim for enhancement of the functional disability, the parties are in serious variance. Sri. Linto Francis R., the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, brought to the notice of this Court that, even according to the report of the medical board, it is the ``` 2025:KER:25903 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` MACA NO. 254 OF 2021 ``` ``` 6 ``` appellant has not suffered whole-body disability. If the disability is attributed to a particular limb, then only one-third of the said disability should be considered for the purpose of computing compensation under the head of permanent disability. If the plea of the appellant for enhancement of the functional disability is accepted by this Court, it would result in unjust compensation being granted to him. 10. On consideration of above submission, this Court finds that the objection raised on behalf of the insurance company is untenable. The principles governing the grant of functional/ occupational disability is no longer res integra. In **Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar [(2022)13 SCC** **790]** , the Supreme Court considered the parameters to be adopted while granting the functional disability. In **Sidram v. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd** **[(2023) 3 SCC 439]** , the Supreme Court held that by fixing the functional disability, due regard has to be made to the avocation of the payment and also to the nature of injuries sustained by him. ``` 2025:KER:25903 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` MACA NO. 254 OF 2021 ``` ``` 7 ``` 11. Applying these principles, this Court is of the considered view that, in light of the report of the medical board, the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant and his avocation as a driver, it would be reasonable to fix the functional disability at 70%. 12. Accordingly, this Court finds that the appellant is entitled to succeed, and therefore, the appeal is allowed as follows: a) Adding 40% future prospects, the income of the appellant is fixed at Rs.26,460/- for the purpose of calculating disability compensation. b) Loss of earnings: Rs.59,200/- (Rs.18,900/- x 8 – Rs.92,000/-) c) Additional compensation towards Pain and sufferings: Rs.20,000/- d) Additional compensation towards Loss of amenities: Rs.20,000/- ``` 2025:KER:25903 ``` ``` MACA NO. 254 OF 2021 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 8 ``` e) Enhanced compensation towards Permanent disability: Rs.3070464/- (Rs.26,460/- x 12 x 16 x 70 / 100 – Rs.4,85,760/- ) Thus, the appellants are entitled to a total amount of Rs. 31,69,664 (Rupees Thirty one Lakh Sixty nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty four only) as enhanced compensation, with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the petition until realization, along with proportionate costs. Since the appellant had limited the claim to Rs. 15,00,000/- before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is directed to deduct the deficit court fee before releasing the amount to the appellant. The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appeal is ordered accordingly. Sd/- **JUDGE** **EASWARAN S.** mea