High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-06-04Appeal partly allowed; enhanced compensation of...

Prashob V. v. Bimalraj and others

Case / Petition Number:MACA 1165 of 2014

Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: SOPHY THOMAS
Judgment Date: 2024-06-04
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed to the extent as above; enhanced compensation of Rs. 34,300 to be deposited by the 3rd respondent-Insurer with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, within two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Tribunal shall disburse that amount to the appellant after deducting liabilities, if any, towards tax, balance court fee, legal benefit fund, etc. The appeal is allowed to the extent as above and no order is made as to costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed; enhanced compensation of Rs. 34,300; insurer to deposit with interest; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

PRASHOB V.

Respondents

BIMALRAJ
P.T.MANOJAN
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
JAYASEELAN P.
NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V. BIN0Y RAM

Counsels for Respondents

• DEEPA GEORGE
• P. MURALEEDHARAN

Case Synopsis & Summary

Prashob V. v. Bimalraj and others, MACA 1165 of 2014, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam delivered on 4 June 2024, relates to a motor accident involving a bus and an autorickshaw on 7 December 2003. The claimant, a 22-year-old mechanic, suffered a comminuted fracture of both bones of the right forearm with compartment syndrome, resulting in prolonged hospitalization (56 days) and four surgeries. He claimed compensation of Rs 4,00,000, but the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, awarded Rs 1,80,100. The appellant challenged the award on grounds of inadequacy and the tribunal's approach to income and heads of damages. The court examined whether the notional monthly income of Rs 4,000, fixed by the Tribunal, properly reflected the claimant’s earning capacity in 2003. Relying on Ramachandrappa v. Manager (AIR 2011 SC 2951), the court held Rs 4,000 as a reasonable notional income for 2003 and proceeded to adjust several heads. It added Rs 12,000 for loss of earning (three extra months beyond the six-month period), Rs 300 for clothing, Rs 2,000 for extra nourishment, Rs 5,000 for pain and suffering, and Rs 15,000 for loss of amenities. The resulting enhanced compensation is Rs 34,300, with the insurer directed to deposit the amount with interest within two months; the appeal is allowed to this extent, with no cost order.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in determining the claimant’s income and consequential compensation. Ext. A8 shows a monthly income of Rs. 4,500, yet the Tribunal fixed notional income at Rs. 4,000, relying on Ramachandrappa to justify the figure as reasonable for the year 2003. The appellant argues that the notional income should reflect actual earning capacity, especially given the 56-day hospitalization and multiple surgeries. He seeks enhancement of loss of earnings for a period longer than six months, and additional awards under heads such as clothing, extra nourishment, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, aligned with the evidence of disability (10%) and the youth of the claimant. The counsel urges a fair, justice-driven adjustment in line with the evidence and the principles governing compensation in MACT cases.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the Tribunal’s award was just and reasonable given the facts, injuries, and evidence. They contend the impairment and hospitalization were already adequately compensated and that the headwise assessment should not be disturbed. The reliance on Ramachandrappa is to confirm the reasonableness of the notional income and the decision should not be disturbed, as enhancement would amount to over-compensation. Liability under the policy remains, and the present challenge is an attempt to reargue factual circumstances and degree of negligence. They urge confirmation of the tribunal’s decision and maintenance of interest provisions and other ancillary orders.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	AIR 2011 SC 2951	Positive	Court relied on this decision to fix the notional income at Rs. 4,000 per month for 2003.

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 Prashob V. v. Bimalraj and others 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 MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 4 [ TH ] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1946 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 1165 OF 2014`** ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 31.10.2013 IN OPMV NO.79 OF 2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY ``` ## **`APPELLANT/PETITIONER:`** ## **`PRASHOB V.,`** ``` S/O. K.P.BALAN, SHOBHANAM, KAKKADAVATH HOUSE, P.O.MOOZHIKKARA, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. ``` ## **`BY ADV SRI.V.BINOY RAM`** ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** ## **`1 BIMALRAJ,`** ``` KUNIYIL HOUSE, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 121. ``` ## **`2 P.T.MANOJAN,`** ``` S/O. CHATHUKUTTY, PADINHARETHARANTAKUNNUMMAL, PUTHUR, P.O.CHENDAYAD, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 692. ``` ## **`3 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KANNUR, PIN-670 003.`** ## **`4 JAYASEELAN P.,`** ``` PURAKANDIYIL HOUSE, P.O.THIRUVANGAD, ``` ``` THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 101. ``` MACA 1165 of 2014 2 ## **`5 NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 101.`** ``` ADV SMT.DEEPA GEORGE, SC, FOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ``` ``` ADV.SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN, SC, NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` MACA 1165 of 2014 3 ## **J U D G M E N T** This appeal is at the instance of the claimant in OP(MV)No.79 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, challenging the award on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. 2. On 07.12.2003, while the appellant was travelling in an autorickshaw, KL-10/P-7182 bus driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the autorickshaw, whereby the appellant suffered comminuted fracture of both bones of right forearm with compartment syndrome, and he was hospitalised for 56 days in total and he underwent four surgeries. He was a 22 year old man working in a workshop, earning monthly income of Rs.4,500/-. He suffered much loss physically and financially due to the injuries suffered in the accident. He approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, but the Tribunal awarded only MACA 1165 of 2014 4 ## Rs.1,80,100/-. Hence this appeal. 3. The 1st respondent was the owner of the offending bus, 2nd respondent was its driver and the 3rd respondent was its Insurer. Respondents 4 and 5 are the owner-cum-driver and Insurer respectively of the autorickshaw, in which the appellant was travelling. The 3rd respondent-Insurer admitted the accident as well as the Insurance Policy of the offending bus. Learned Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 2nd respondent and so the 3rd respondent-Insurer was liable to indemnify the owner of the bus, and thereby to compensate the appellant. 4. According to the 3rd respondent-Insurer, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and so, it needs no modification. 5. Now this Court is called upon to answer whether MACA 1165 of 2014 5 there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned award, warranting interference by this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-Insurer. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though Ext.A8 Salary Certificate was produced by the appellant before the Tribunal to show that he was earning monthly income of Rs.4,500/-, learned Tribunal fixed his notional income only @ Rs.4,000/-. It is seen that learned Tribunal, taking into account Ext.A8 and the attending circumstances, fixed his monthly income as Rs.4,000/-. Even relying on the decision **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951]** , the notional income fixed for the appellant @ Rs.4,000/-, in the year 2003 seems to be reasonable and it needs no interference. 8. Learned Tribunal assessed loss of earning for six MACA 1165 of 2014 6 months @ Rs.4,000/-. The appellant was hospitalized for 56 days and he underwent four surgeries. He had suffered comminuted fracture of both bones of right forearm with compartment syndrome. Since that fracture was on his right forearm, he might not have been able to continue his job as a mechanic at least for a period of 9 months. So, this Court is inclined to award Rs.12,000/as enhancement towards loss of earning for extra three months (4,000x3). 9. Towards damage to clothing, this Court is inclined to award Rs.300/-, since no amount was seen awarded by the Tribunal under that head. 10. For extra nourishment, learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.6,000/-. It has come out in evidence that the appellant was hospitalised for 56 days and he was compelled to take rest at least for 9 months without going for any job. So, this Court is inclined to award Rs.2,000/- MACA 1165 of 2014 7 more under the head ‘extra nourishment’. 11. Towards pain and suffering, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- against his claim of Rs.50,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant, the period of hospitalisation and the disability also suffered by the appellant due to the injuries suffered, this Court is inclined to award Rs.5,000/- more under the head ‘pain and suffering’. 12. No amount was seen awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of amenities. The appellant was a 22 year old man and he suffered 10% disability as seen from Ext.X2 Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board. The comminuted fracture suffered by the appellant was on his right forearm. So, this Court is inclined to award Rs.15,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities’. 13. The compensation awarded under all other heads seems to be reasonable and hence it needs no MACA 1165 of 2014 8 ## modification. |odification.|||| |---|---|---|---| |Head of claim|Amount awarded by the Tribunal|Amount awarded in appeal|Difference to be drawn as enhanced compensation| |Loss of earning|Rs.24,000/-|Rs.36,000/-|Rs.12,000/-| |Damage to clothing|….|Rs.300/-|Rs.300/-| |Extra nourishment|Rs.6,000/-|Rs.8,000/-|Rs.2,000/-| |Pain and suffering|Rs.40,000/-|Rs.45,000/-|Rs.5,000/-| |Loss of amenities|….|Rs.15,000/-|Rs.15,000/-| |Total|||**Rs.34,300**/-| 14. In the result, the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.34,300/-. 15. The 3rd respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit enhanced compensation of Rs.34,300/- (Rupees Thirty Four Thousand Three Hundred only), with interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit, (excluding 87 days of delay in filing the appeal), before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, MACA 1165 of 2014 9 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Learned Tribunal shall disburse that amount to the appellant after deducting the liabilities, if any, towards tax, balance court fee, legal benefit fund etc. The appeal is allowed to the extent as above and no order is made as to costs. Sd/- **SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE** DSV/-