High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2018-01-03Appeal allowed in part, with enhanced compensat...

Prasanth Kumaran Pillai v. E.V. Thomas and The Managing Director, Kerala State Transport Corporation (KSRTC)

Case / Petition Number:MACA No.1107 of 2012

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Harilal
Judgment Date: 2018-01-03
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed in part. The High Court enhances the appellant’s compensation to Rs 1,67,310 (revised figures: Rs 4,000 monthly notional income; 10% permanent disability; appropriate multiplier 17; enhanced sums for loss of income, loss of amenities, pain and sufferings, etc.). The rest of the impugned award remains undisturbed, and the enhanced amount will carry interest at the rate fixed by the Tribunal.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part, with enhanced compensation to Rs. 1,67,310; other parts of the impugned award maintained.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Prasanth Kumaran Pillai S/O Rajan OillaI, Ananda Sadanam, Kaipuzha North P.O., Kulanda, Pandalam

Respondents

E.V. Thomas
The Managing Director, Kerala State Transport Corporation (KSRTC)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. T.K. Koshy
• Sri. N. Babu Varghese
• Smt. V.V. Risani

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Joy George, Senior Counsel, KSRTC

Case Synopsis & Summary

Prasanth Kumaran Pillai, appellant in MACA 1107 of 2012, challenges an award of Rs 86,510 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta in O.P.(MV) 1335/2004. The accident occurred on 18 August 2004 on Chengannur-Pandalam M.C. Road when the KSRTC bus allegedly rashly overtook and collided with the rear of the appellant’s motorcycle KL-3J 9997, causing severe injuries. The Tribunal held joint and several liability on the first respondent (rider) and second respondent (owner of KSRTC bus) and awarded compensation to the appellant. The appellant contends that the quantum under several heads is inadequate. He argues that the Tribunal erred in fixing monthly notional income at Rs 3,000; the evidence shows a disability certificate of 10%, but the Tribunal assessed 5% without basis. He also claims inadequacy in the award for loss of amenities and pain and suffering. He relies on the Supreme Court’s Ramachandrappa decision to fix a notional income around Rs 4,000 per month and on Sarla Varma for the appropriate multiplier (17) and the disability certificate. The High Court enhances notional income to Rs 4,000, upholds 10% permanent disability, applies the appropriate multiplier, and increases compensation to Rs 1,67,310, while keeping other heads intact. The appeal is allowed in part.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income rule (as discussed in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.)
Multiplier rule (as applied in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in quantifying the compensation. Notional monthly income should be Rs 4,000 in 2004 (per Ramachandrappa) instead of Rs 3,000. The disability should be 10% (per Ext.A8) rather than 5%. Loss of amenities and pain and suffering should be higher due to permanent disability and life expectancy. The multiplier should be 17 (as per Sarla Varma) and the overall compensation should be re-worked accordingly.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue the accident occurred due to the appellant’s own rash riding and deny liability for enhanced compensation. They contend the Tribunal’s quantum is adequate and urge restraint from increasing income, disability percentage, or the multiplier without solid justification. The respondents rely on the findings of the Tribunal and oppose interpretation beyond the impugned award.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd.	2011 (13) SCC 236	Positive	The High Court relies on Ramachandrappa to fix a higher notional monthly income (Rs 4,000 in 2004) for computation of compensation.
Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	2009 (6) SCC 121	Positive	The Court applies the multiplier for age 26-30 as 17 per Sarla Varma doctrine; used to rework the loss of earnings.

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 Prasanth Kumaran Pillai v. E.V. Thomas and The Managing Director, Kerala State Transport Corporation (KSRTC) 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 K.HARILAL** **WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 13TH POUSHA, 1939** **MACA.No. 1107 of 2012** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1335/2004 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 29-01-2012** ## **APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT** **PRASANTH KUMARAN PILLAI S/O.RAJAN OILLAI, ANANDA SADANAM, KAIPUZHA NORTH P.O., KULANADA, PANDALAM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.KOSHY SRI.N.BABU VARGHESE SMT.V.V.RISANI** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **1. E.V.THOMAS S/O.VARGHESE, ETTONNIL HOUSE, KALLISSERRY P.O., CHENGANNUR.** **2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **R2 BY SRI.JOY GEORGE, SC, K.S.R.T.C.** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **K.Harilal, J.** ==================================== M.A.C.ANo.1107 of 2012 ==================================== Dated this the 3[rd] day of January, 2018. ## **JUDGMENT** 1.The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.(MV)No.1335/2004 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. The said appeal was filed challenging the inadequacy of the quantum of compensation determined under different heads of account in the impugned common award. According to the appellant, on 18.8.2004 while the appellant was riding a motor cycle bearing No.KL-3J 9997 through Chengannur-Pandalam M.C.Road, a KSRTC bus bearing No.KL-15 2897 came through the said road in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the back side of the motor cycle. Consequently, the appellant sustained severe injuries and he was taken to hospital for treatment. The accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the first respondent. The second respondent is the Maca 1107/2012 -:2:- owner of the offending KSRTC bus and respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the appellant. The appellant claimed an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation. - 2.Respondents 1 and 2 challenged the claim for compensation contending that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent riding of the appellant himself and they denied the allegation respecting cause of accident put forward against them. On the rival pleadings, the appellant adduced evidence which consists of Exts.A 1 to A11. On appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal passed the impugned award granting a compensation of Rs.86,510/- to the appellant. - 3.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. - 4.The learned counsel for the appellant advanced arguments highlighting the inadequacy of the quantum of compensation determined under various heads of account by the Tribunal. The learned counsel mainly contended that the monthly income of Maca 1107/2012 -:3:- the appellant determined by the Tribunal is a meagre amount only in view of the decision of the Apex Court in _**Ramachandrappra v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd.**_ **[2011 (13) SCC 236]** . According to him, the notional income could have been fixed in between Rs.3,500/and Rs.4,500/-. Secondly, it is contended that though the medical board has issued Ext.A8 disability certificate stating disability at 10%, the Tribunal discarded the same and arbitrarily fixed disability at 5%. Thirdly, the amount granted under the head of loss of amenities is inadequate in view of the disability certificate stating permanent disability issued by the medical board. 5.In view of the arguments at the bar and the grounds raised in the Memorandum of Appeal, the scope and extent of consideration in this appeal is confined to the adequacy of the quantum of compensation granted under different heads of accounts in the Maca 1107/2012 -:4:- impugned award. The question is, is the Tribunal justified in determining the quantum of compensation under different heads? Going by the impugned award, it is seen that Rs.3,000/- was taken as monthly notional income. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the decision in _**Ramachandrappa's**_ case ( _supra_ ), the Apex Court observed that a reasonable notional income during the period of 2004 could be between Rs.100/- or Rs.150/- per day. In the instant case, the accident occurred in the year 18.8.2004. Therefore, in the light of the observation made in the aforesaid decision, the monthly notional income fixed by the Tribunal will stand enhanced and modified to Rs.4,000/- per month. Further, this court finds that the medical board issued Ext.A8 disability certificate stating that permanent disability of the appellant is 10%. But, the Tribunal discarded the said certificate and fixed the permanent disability at 5% without any basis. I do not find any reason to reduce the Maca 1107/2012 -:5:- percentage of disability to 5% from 10%. There is no need to make a physical verification of disability by mere eyes, when the competent authority having expertise certified the disability at 10%. Therefore, the permanent disability is taken at 10%. This court further finds that the reduction in the percentage of disability is arbitrary and unsustainable as the same stands on a wrong basis. 6.Further, the learned counsel for the appellant cited the decision in _**Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation**_ **[2009 (6) SCC 121]** and contended that the multiplier which is applicable to the injured aged between 26 to 30 is 17 and not 16 as taken by the Tribunal. Going by the said decision, this court finds that the multiplier applicable to the appellant was 17, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. Hence, the loss of earnings would stand re-worked and modified as 4000x12x17x10/100=81,600. Considering the nature of injuries Maca 1107/2012 -:6:- sustained, the appellant could not have gone for work at least for 5 months. So, loss of earnings also would stand enhanced and modified to 4000x5=20,000. 7.Further, this court finds that Rs.3,000/- was given for loss of amenities. The learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to Ext.A8 disability certificate, which shows that the appellant had suffered partial angelosis to right knee and right angle and shortening of right leg. At the time of accident, he was aged 27 years only and his sufferings during the remaining life span also should be taken into consideration while determining the loss of amenities. In the above view, the loss of amenities would stand enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. Similarly, in the light of Ext.A8 disability certificate, the long period of hospitalisation and the grievous nature of the injury sustained on different parts of the body, the compensation for pain and sufferings would stand enhanced and modified to Rs.15,000/-. Maca 1107/2012 -:7:- Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellant would stand enhanced and modified to Rs.1,67,310/[20,000+500+500+500+33010+1200+15,000+81,600+15,000] It is made clear that the enhanced amount would carry interest at the rate fixed by the Tribunal. The remaining portion of the impugned award would stand undisturbed. 8.The appeal is allowed in part. **K.Harilal, Judge** sl.