Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaDivision BenchAppeal disposed of; enhanced compensation to th...

PRITHVIRAJ K.P PUTHENTHARAYIL v. SANOOB S., LATHA KAMMATH & BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

Case / Petition Number:MACA No. 2967 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.T. Ravikumar
  • K.P. Jyothindranath
Judgment Date
2016-10-06
Court Decision / Holding
The High Court disposed of the appeal by enhancing several heads of compensation. It accepted a notional monthly income of Rs 7,000 (instead of Rs 5,000 as used by the Tribunal) and allowed six months for loss of income during treatment, yielding an additional Rs 36,750. It re-assessed the disability head, awarding Rs 51,840, and granted Rs 10,000 more for amenities. For pain and suffering, an additional Rs 5,000 was added to the Rs 30,000 already awarded. In total, the appellant was found entitled to an additional Rs 1,03,600, with 8% interest from the date of the petition till realisation, to be paid within two months by the insurer. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Final Disposition
Appeal disposed of; enhanced compensation to the appellant with interest; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • PRITHVIRAJ K.P PUTHENTHARAYIL

Respondents

  • Sanoob S.
  • Latha Kammath
  • Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri T.K. Koshy
  • • Sri Sabu I. Koshy
  • • Sri Anil George

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri Joy Joseph (Manayathu)
  • • Sri A.A. Ziyad Rahman

Case Synopsis & Summary

Prithviraj K.P. Puthentharyil, the appellant in MACA 2967/2016, challenges the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal II, Pathanamthitta in O.P.(MV) No.1424/2010 for a September 2010 accident involving the appellant as a pillion rider on a motorcycle hit by a lorry. The injuries included a fracture of the right femur and fracture of the right clavicle, resulting in prolonged treatment and an extended period of non-employment; the appellant claims an income of Rs 12,000 per month as a mason, and argues that the Tribunal undervalued damages across heads such as loss of earnings, disability, and pain and suffering. The Tribunal awarded Rs 2,02,350, with notional income of Rs 5,000, and treated the disability and other heads conservatively. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Ramachandrappa, the Kerala High Court increases the notional income to Rs 7,000 per month, and determines six months as the treatment period for loss of income, resulting in an additional Rs 36,750. Disability compensation is re-assessed to Rs 51,840, while a further Rs 10,000 is granted for reduction in amenities; Rs 5,000 more for pain and suffering (in addition to Rs 30,000 already awarded). The result is an overall additional compensation of Rs 1,03,600, with 8% interest from the petition date and payment within two months. The appeal is disposed of accordingly, with no costs ordered.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant argued for higher compensation, highlighting the severity of injuries (fracture of the right femur and right clavicle), prolonged treatment, and loss of earnings. He asserted that notional income should reflect his actual earning capacity as a mason; relying on Ramachandrappa, the court should set a higher monthly notional income and extend the loss of income period beyond the three months fixed by the Tribunal. He contended that disability and amenities heads warranted reassessment given the injuries and ongoing impact on work capacity and quality of life, justifying additional compensation for pain and suffering.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent-insurance company contended that the Tribunal’s total award of Rs 2,02,350 was just. It accepted the medical board’s assessment of disability and argued there was no justification to disturb the award on other heads. The Tribunal’s conservative approach to damages was argued to be appropriate given the facts occurring in 2010 and that the present appeal should not upset the established assessment without cogent evidence.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.(2011) 13 SCC 236PositiveCited to justify the use of notional monthly income in determining compensation; the court adopts the Ramachandrappa principle for notional income in assessing earning capacity.

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 PRITHVIRAJ K.P PUTHENTHARAYIL v. SANOOB S., LATHA KAMMATH & BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 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.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/14TH ASWINA, 1938 MACA.No. 2967 of 2016 () ------------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1424/2010 of ADDL.MACT- II, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 31-03-2016 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: ----------------------- PRITHVIRAJ K.P PUTHENTHARAYIL HOUSE, PEZHUMPARA P.O, VASSDASSERIKKARA VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK. BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.KOSHY SRI.SABU I.KOSHY SRI.ANIL GEORGE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1TO 3: -------------------------------- ## 1. SANOOB S. S/O.T.V.SOMAN, SAJEEV BHAVANAM, CHENGALOM P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 585. ## 2. LATHA KAMMATH PEEDIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THAZHATHANGADI P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 605. ## 3. BRANCH MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., KOTTAYAM CITY BRANCH, CO-OPERATIVE BANK BUILDING, CENTRAL JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001. R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOY JOSEPH (MANAYATHU) R3 BY SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR & K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.** ## **========================== M.A.C.A. No.2967 OF 2016 ==========================** Dated this the 6[th] day of October, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** _Jyothindranath, J._ This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P.(MV).No.1424 of 2010 on the files of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims TribunalII, Pathanamthitta. The challenge is against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2.When this appeal came up for admission, the learned counsel Sri.T.K.Koshy, appearing for the appellant, submitted before us that here is a case where a motor vehicle accident occurred involving a motor cycle and a lorry. The appellant/petitioner was a pillion rider on the motor cycle. He sustained very severe injuries including fracture of right femur and also fracture and contusion of right collar **M.A.C.A.2967/2016** 2 bone. It is also the case of the appellant that he is a mason by profession and was earning `12,000/- per month. Due to the injuries, he had not worked for more than one year. But, the Tribunal awarded only `5,250/- as compensation towards loss of income. Moreover, the Tribunal considered only `5,000/- as notional income. It is also the submission that the compensation awarded on the other heads is also on a lower side. 3.The learned counsel Sri.Joy Joseph (Manayathu), appearing for the insurance company, submitted before us that the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of `2,02,350/- which is a just compensation. The whole body disability assessed by the medical board is accepted by the Tribunal, without assigning any special reason. 4.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that, the appellant is a mason by profession and **M.A.C.A.2967/2016** 3 the functional disability will be on a higher side. 5.We perused the award and the schedule attached to the same. After perusal, we are of the view that this is a case which can be disposed of, at the admission stage itself. We heard the learned counsel in detail. 6.The accident occurred in the year 2010, that also, in the month of September. Surely, the appellant did not adduce any cogent evidence to substantiate his claim that he is a mason by profession. But at the very same time, even in the case of a coolie, the Apex Court fixed a notional monthly income of `4,500/- **[Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.** [ **(2011) 13 SCC 236],** in respect of an accident occurred in 2004. In this case, the accident occurred in the month of September, 2010. Considering the passage of time and other attending circumstances, we are inclined to consider `7,000/- as the monthly income for **M.A.C.A.2967/2016** 4 assessment purpose. It can be seen that, the Tribunal considered only three months' period for calculation of loss of income due to injury. Here is a case where there is fracture of shaft of femur as well as there is fracture of collar bone. Considering all aspects, six months' period is considered for assessing loss of income during the treatment period. A sum of `5,250/- is seen awarded by the Tribunal on this head. Thus, the appellant will be entitled for an additional compensation of `36,750/- (7000x6-5250). Apart from the same, the compensation available on the head of disability is also to be re-assessed considering a monthly income of `7,000/-. Thus, the appellant will be entitled for an additional compensation of `51840/- (7000x12x18x12/100129600) on the said head. Here is a case where the appellant sustained fracture of shaft of femur. Moreover, there is also a fracture of collar bone. Thus, his amenities will be adversely affected. The Tribunal awarded only a sum of `10,000/- on this head. Considering the percentage of disability, we feel that an enhancement is warranted. Thus, an additional sum of `10,000 is granted on this head. Towards **M.A.C.A.2967/2016** 5 pain and suffering, only a sum of `30,000/- is seen awarded. Considering the nature of the injuries and all other aspects, an additional sum of `5,000/- awarded on this head. Thus, the appellant will be entitled for an additional compensation of `1,03,590/- which is rounded off to `1,03,600/-. The said amount will carry 8% interest from the date of the petition till realisation. The insurance company shall pay the amount within two months of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appeal is disposed of as stated above. There will be no order as to costs. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **Sd/-** **K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH (JUDGE)** **spc/** **M.A.C.A.2967/2016** 6 **M.A.C.A.2967/2016** 7 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** **M.A.C.A.2967/2016** 8