High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2011-09-26Partly allowed

P.T. Venugopal v. P.D. Thomas and Sibi and National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.1311 of 2011

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: R. Basant
M. C. Hari Rani
Judgment Date: 2011-09-26
Court Decision / Holding: This appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.2,28,000/- (Rupees two lakhs twenty eight thousand only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. The entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as specified by the Tribunal. All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld.
Final Disposition: Partly allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P. T. Venugopal

Respondents

P.D. Thomas
Sibi
National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. G. Balamuraleedharan (Paravur)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Rajan P. Kaliyath
• Sri M. A. George

Case Synopsis & Summary

P. Venugopal, the appellant, sustained severe injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 31 October 2005, resulting in quadriplegia and 100% permanent disability (as per Ext. A6). He was employed as a casual labourer and was an inpatient for ten days. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs 5,58,100 against the insurer, despite his claim for Rs 6,00,000 under heads including medical expenses, transportation, loss of earnings, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and permanent disability. The appellant contends the tribunal erred by calculating his monthly income at Rs 2,000 instead of Rs 3,000, urging reliance on Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar and Laxmi Devi v. Mohammad Tabbar to justify a higher income estimate for nonearning homemakers or unskilled workers. He also submits that bystander and extra nourishment expenditures were not adequately compensated. The High Court agrees that Rs 3,000 per month is a reasonable income and awards Rs 100 per day for extra nourishment and bystander expenses during treatment, with continuing bystander support for life. It recalculates the compensation, adding Rs 2,28,000 to the Tribunal’s amount and upholding other directions; the appellate court’s order carries interest as specified by the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed in part.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Second Schedule, Clause 6

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Presumption of prudence under Second Schedule, Clause 6
Multiplicand- multiplier method for calculating loss of earning capacity
Recognition of bystander expenses and extra nourishment in compensation awards (as reflected in jurisprudence cited)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the tribunal grossly erred in fixing his monthly income at Rs. 2,000 for compensation calculations; relying on Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar and Laxmi Devi v. Mohammad Tabbar, he argues that an income of Rs. 3,000 per month is a safe assumption for nonearning homemakers or unskilled workers. He also submits that the tribunal’s award under loss of amenities is inadequate and that bystander and extra nourishment expenses during treatment, as well as lifelong bystander support, have not been properly compensated. He seeks recalibration of loss of earnings, increase in the amount for loss of earning capacity, and inclusion of extra nourishment and bystander costs (Rs.100 per day) during treatment and for life; he argues these adjustments total a substantial enhancement of the award.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents press that the tribunal rightly awarded compensation and that the sole ground of challenge is the quantum. They contend the monthly income of Rs.2,000 was not unjustified and request that the award be maintained except as regards any specific, properly argued adjustments. They oppose further enhancements for bystander/extras unless supported by evidence and highlight that the Tribunal’s directions, including interest, should be upheld unless shown to be improper.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Lata Wadhwa and Others v. State of Bihar and Others	2001 SC 3218	Positive	The court adopts the principle from this decision that a nonearning home maker or unskilled worker can be treated as capable of earning Rs.3,000 per month for computation of compensation.
Laxmi Devi v. Mohammad Tabbar	2008 ACJ 1488	Positive	The decision supports the assumed monthly income of Rs.3,000 for similar categories, which the court accepts for calculating compensation.

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 P.T. Venugopal v. P.D. Thomas and Sibi and National Insurance 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 R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 1311 of 2011() ----------------------OPMV.44/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT: ORIGINAL PETITIONER -------------P.T.VENUGOPAL. S/O.THILAKAN PALLATHU HOUSE, KOOTTUKAD VADAKKUMPURAM.P.O., CHEDAMANGALAM. PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR) RESPONDENTS: --------------ORIGINAL 1ST RESPONDENT: (1) P.D.THOMAS S/O. DEVASSIA PULICKAL HOUSE, PTMS ERATTUPETTA.P.O. PALAI, KOTTAYAM-686001. ORIGINAL 2ND RESPONDENT (2) SIBI S/O THOMAS PODOOR VEETTIL, MADUKKAKARA MUNDAKAYAM.P.O. PIN 686 001. NORTH ERUMELY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. ORIGINAL 3RD RESPONDENT (3) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. BRANCH OFFICE CHERUPUSHPAM BUILDINGS, MAIN ROAD, KOTTAYAM.P.O. PIN 686 001. ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH FOR R3 SRI.M.A.GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: **R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * *** M.A.C.A.No.1311 of 2011 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of September 2011 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **R.BASANT,J** Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 31/10/2005. He had suffered injury to the vertebra and also head injury. He has suffered quadriplegia. He was an inpatient for a period of ten days. He has been rendered unable to move after the accident. A medical board to whom he was referred assessed the disability to be 100% as per Ext.A6. He was employed as a casual labourer. Against a claim of Rs.6,00,000/-, the tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.5,58,100/- as compensation as per the details given in paragraph 7 of the impugned award which we extract below: |**_Sl.No._**|**_Head_**|**_Amount claimed_** **_(Rs.)_**|**_Amount granted_** **_(Rs.)_**| |---|---|---|---| |1.|Medical expenses|1,00,000|83,100 (A5 series)| |2.|Transportation|50,000|3,000| |3.|Loss of earning|12,000|12,000 (Rs.2,000x6)| |4.|Pain and suffering|2,00,000|75,000| |5.|Loss of amenities|1,00,000|25,000| 2 M.A.C.A.No.1311 of 2011 |**_Sl.No._**|**_Head_**|**_Amount claimed_** **_(Rs.)_**|**_Amount granted_** **_(Rs.)_**| |---|---|---|---| |6.|Compensation for permanent disability and disfiguration|3,00,000|3,60,000 (2000 x 12 x 15 x 100/100)| |||**Total**|**5,58,100**| 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. The insurance company has been made entirely liable to satisfy the award. The challenge in this appeal is raised only against the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on various grounds. First of all, it is contended that the tribunal has erred grossly in reckoning the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.2,000/-. The accident had taken place on 31/10/2005. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that, in any view of the matter, the monthly income of the appellant must have been reckoned at Rs.3,000/-. The claim was modestly staked that his monthly income was Rs.3,000/-. In any view of the matter, the tribunal is not justified in reckoning the monthly income below Rs.3,000/-. The appellant was a married man and he and his family were depending upon the income of the appellant to keep M.A.C.A.No.1311 of 2011 3 body and soul together. In any view of the matter, therefore, Rs.3,000/- must have been reckoned as the monthly income, contends the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on the presumption of prudence permitted under clause 6 of the second schedule. The learned counsel also presses into service the dictum in **Lata Wadhwa and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [2001 SC 3218]** and **Laxmi Devi v. Mohammad Tabbar [2008 ACJ 1488]** under which the Supreme Court has held that even a nonearning home maker as also an unskilled manual worker can safely be assumed to earn an income of Rs.3,000/- per month. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. We are satisfied that Rs.3,000/- per month can safely be reckoned as the monthly income of the claimant/appellant. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant then submits that only an amount of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded under the head of loss of amenities. The learned counsel for the insurance company Adv.Sri.Rajan P. Kaliyath immediately points out that a total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded under the head of loss of amenities and pain and sufferings. In these circumstances, the amounts awarded under those heads do not 4 M.A.C.A.No.1311 of 2011 4 warrant interference, it is submitted. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant then submits that no amount has been awarded under the head of extra nourishment and bystander expenses. From the date of the accident, the appellant has been in need of the services of a bystander. The disability certificate Ext.A6 clearly suggests that the appellant, in order to live, will have to depend upon the help and services of a bystander. Reasonable amount of compensation ought to be awarded under the head of extra nourishment and bystander's expenses during the period of treatment. Bystander expenses for life will also have to be awarded, contends the counsel. 6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that Rs.3,000/- can be reckoned as the monthly income. The acceptance of such a monthly income will have a reflection on the compensation awarded under the head of loss of earnings as also compensation for reduction in earning capacity identified by the multipliermultiplicand method. We are in agreement that an amount at the rate of Rs.100/- per day under each head deserves to be awarded as compensation for extra nourishment and bystander's 5 M.A.C.A.No.1311 of 2011 expenses for the period of treatment. The evidence clearly suggests that the appellant will have to completely depend on a bystander for the rest of his life. Considering the nature of the disability suffered by him, we are satisfied that compensation deserves to be awarded under this head also. 7. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.2,26,000/- as shown below as compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the tribunal. |i)|Loss of earnings|Rs.6,000/-| |---|---|---| ||[Rs.18,000/- (Rs.3,000/- x 6)|| ||minus Rs.12,000/-]|| |ii)|Compensation for reduction in|Rs.1,80,000/-| ||earning capacity|| ||[Rs.5,40,000/- (Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 15|| ||x 100/100) minus Rs.3,60,000/-]|| |iii)|Extra nourishment and bystander|Rs.2,000/-| ||expenses during the period of|| ||treatment (10 days x Rs.200/-)|| |iv)|Bystander's expenses|Rs.40,000/-| ||(for the rest of the life from the|| ||date of completion of treatment)|| |||---------------------| ||**Total**|**Rs.2,28,000/-**| |||**=========**| 8. We are not persuaded to agree that the impugned award warrants interference on any other ground. 6 M.A.C.A.No.1311 of 2011 9. In the result, a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.2,28,000/- (Rupees two lakhs twenty eight thousand only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as specified by the tribunal. d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. **(R.BASANT, JUDGE)** **(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)** jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge M.A.C.A.No.1311 of 2011 7 8 M.A.C.A.No.1311 of 2011 **K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.** .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010