High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAppeal allowed; enhanced compensation; insurer ...

Rainy Jaison v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 2857 OF 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Shoba Annamma Eapen
Judgment Date
2024-06-18
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal allowed; enhanced total compensation Rs. 96,240 over the Tribunal’s award; interest @ 8% per annum from date of petition till realization; costs; insurer to deposit the enhanced amount within two months with PAN, AADHAAR, and bank details furnished.
Final Disposition
Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation; insurer to deposit within two months; 8% interest and costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Rainy Jaison

Respondents

  • The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. A.N. Santhosh

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. Rinny Stephen ChamaparamPIl
  • • Smt. Asha Elizabeth Mathew

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA No. 2857 of 2019) arises from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, in OP(MV) No. 377 of 2016. The claimant Rainy Jaison, pillion rider on a motorcycle, was injured in a collision with an auto-rickshaw on 03.01.2016. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,61,630 as compensation, with eight percent interest. The claimant challenged the quantum on multiple heads: notional income, loss of earnings, pain and suffering, permanent disability, and loss of amenities. The appellant argued the notional income should be Rs. 10,500 per month (citing Ramachandrappa) and that four months of loss of earnings, 6% permanent disability (supported by Ext. A6, a 6% disability certificate), higher compensation for pain and suffering, and greater loss of amenities were warranted. The Insurance Company contended the Tribunal’s award was reasonable and must stand. The High Court, after examination of the evidence and cited precedents, concluded that the notional income ought to be updated to Rs. 10,500; four months of loss should be considered; permanent disability should be recalculated at 6%; and other heads adjusted, resulting in a total enhanced compensation. The appeal was allowed, with Rs. 96,240 additional compensation, interest at 8% per annum, and costs, to be deposited within two months.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the notional income ought to be Rs. 10,500 per month (citing Ramachandrappa and AIR 2011 SC 2951). She argues that four months should be treated as the period of loss of earnings given the nature of injuries and the female claimant’s inability to work. She seeks higher compensation for pain and suffering, from Rs. 30,000 (as awarded) to Rs. 35,000, and corresponding increases in permanent disability (from 4% to 6%, based on Ext. A6) and loss of amenities (additional Rs. 10,000). She relies on Manikantan G. v. K. Janardhanan Nair and Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar to justify higher disability assessment and overall enhancement.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer argues that the Tribunal’s quantum was reasonable; though notional income and heads of compensation should align with the evidence, there is no basis to deviate for four months of loss of earnings or to increase disability without adequate proof beyond Ext. A6. It objected to any large uplift in pain and suffering and loss of amenities, and urged adherence to the Tribunal’s calculation unless distinctly shown to be erroneous.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company LimitedAIR 2011 SC 2951PositiveUsed to justify updating notional income to Rs. 10,500 per month for a 2016 accident.
Manikantan G. v. K. Janardhanan Nair2021 (5) KHC 305PositiveCited to support 6% permanent disability assessment in calculation.
Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar2011 (1) KLT 620 SCPositiveCited as authority reinforcing percentage of disability for compensation calculation.

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 Rainy Jaison v. Oriental Insurance Company 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 MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN TUESDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1946 MACA NO. 2857 OF 2019`** ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 14.03.2019 IN O.P (MV) NO.377 OF 2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA ``` ## **`APPELLANT/PETITIONER :-`** ``` RAINY JAISON, W/O.JAISON, AGED 32 YEARS, THEKKUMPURAM HOUSE, KANNAMBATHUR DESOM, THORAVU VILLAGE, CHENGALLOOR P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ``` ## **`BY ADV A.N.SANTHOSH`** ## **`RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT :-`** ``` THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. MALIACKAL GALAXY, OPP.MSM COLLEGE, KAYAMKULAM-690 502. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 2857 OF 2019 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.377 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The respondent herein is the 2[nd] respondent before the tribunal. 2. According to the appellant/claimant, on 03.01.2016 at about 9.30 am, while she was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL 08 V 4595 through Amballur-Pudukkad sector of NH 47, an autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KL 23 E 3301 driven by the 1[st] respondent came in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and hit against the motorcycle, as a result of which the petitioner sustained serious injuries. The appellant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 3. The respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, the evidence consists of documentary evidence as Exts.A1 to A10 on the ``` MACA NO. 2857 OF 2019 ``` ``` 3 ``` side of the appellant/claimant and Exts.B1 and B2 on the side of the respondent. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of 1,61,630/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the second respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads; **- Income/notional income :** The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant/claimant was working as Accountant in a private timber company and was earning a monthly income of Rs.12,000/- per month. But the tribunal has considered only an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month. The learned counsel further submits that even going by the judgment in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal** ``` MACA NO. 2857 OF 2019 ``` ``` 4 ``` ## **Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR** **2011 SC 2951],** the notional income ought to have been fixed at Rs.10,500/- since the accident occurred in the year 2016. On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the accident occurred on 03.01.2016. Even going by **Ramachandrappa (supra),** I am of the opinion that the notional income has to be enhanced and therefore, the notional income is refixed at Rs.10,500/- per month. **Loss of earnings :-** The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant, being a lady, had suffered undisplaced fracture of left cuboid and subluxation of subtalar joint. Therefore, she could not go for any work for almost six months. The tribunal has considered only for a period of three months for calculating the loss of earnings. On considering the facts of the case and the injuries sustained, I am of the opinion that a period of four months can be taken into consideration for computing the compensation under the head loss of earnings. Since the notional monthly income has already been fixed at Rs.10,500/-, the total compensation under the said head would be Rs.42,000/- (10,500x4). Thus, there will be an additional ``` MACA NO. 2857 OF 2019 ``` ``` 5 ``` amount of Rs.18,000/- under the said head. **Pain and sufering :-** Though the appellant claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards pain and suffering, the tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.30,000/-. The learned counsel points out that the appellant was a lady aged 29 years and she had to do household duties as well as her personal duties in spite of the injuries sustained and had to undergo a lot of pain. Therefore, the amount awarded towards pain and suffering is very low. Considering the injuries suffered and age of the appellant, I feel that a further additional amount of Rs.5,000/- can be granted towards compensation for pain and suffering. Thus, the total compensation under the said head is Rs.35,000/- **- Compensation for permanent disability :** The learned counsel for the appellant submits that Ext.A6 disability certificate issued by the Doctor reveals that the appellant had 6% permanent disability, but the tribunal had reduced the disability to 4%. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company submitted that though the disability certificate was produced, it was a single doctor certificate and ``` MACA NO. 2857 OF 2019 ``` ``` 6 ``` no evidence was adduced. However, on perusal of Ext.A6 certificate, a copy of which is handed over to me, it is seen that the doctor was assessed 6% disability after examining the appellant. The reasoning of the tribunal does not appear to be acceptable in view of the decisions of this Court in **Manikantan G. v. K.Janardhanan Nair** [2021(5) KHC 305] and **Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar** [2011 (1) KLT 620 SC]. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to consider 6% disability, as assessed in Ext.A6 disability certificate, for the purpose of calculating compensation. Accordingly, the compensation under the head permanent disability has to be recomputed. Since the monthly income has been enhanced to Rs.10,500/-, the compensation for permanent disability has to be recalculated as Rs.1,28,520/- (10,500x12x17x6/100). The tribunal has awarded Rs.65,280-. Thus, there will be an additional enhancement of Rs.63,240/- under the said head. **- Loss of amenities :** Though the appellant had claimed Rs.50,000/- under the head of loss of amenities, the tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained and also the age of the ``` MACA NO. 2857 OF 2019 ``` ``` 7 ``` appellant, I feel that a further amount of Rs.10,000/- can be added under the said head. ## 6. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows: |**Sl.**<br>**No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount**<br>**claimed**|**Amount**<br>**awarded**<br>**by the**<br>**tribunal**|**Modifed**<br>**in appeal**|**Total**<br>**compensation**| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |1|**Loss of earnings**|**72,000**|**24,000**|**18,000**|**42,000**| |2|Transportation<br>expenses|5,00|2,000|(not<br>modifed)|2,000| |3|Extra nourishment|5,000|1,000|(not<br>modifed)|1,000| |4|Damage to<br>clothings|5,000|1,000|(not<br>modifed)|1,000| |5|Attendant<br>expenses|5,000|600|(not<br>modifed)|600| |6|Medical expenses|25,000|17,750|(not<br>modifed)|17,750| |**7**|**Pain & sufering**|**50,000**|**30,000**|**5,000**|**35,000**| |**8**|**Permanent**<br>**disability**|**2,00,000**|**65,280**|**63,240**|**1,28,520**| |9|**Loss of**<br>**amenities**|**50,000**|**20,000**|**10,000**|**30,000**| |10|Loss of earning<br>power|1,00,000|Nil|Nil|Nil| |11|Disfguration|50,000|Nil|Nil|Nil| |12|Mental dejection|30,000|Nil|Nil|Nil| |13|Anticipated<br>medical expenses|50,000|Nil|Nil|Nil| ||**TOTAL**|**5,97,000**|**1,61,630**|**96,240**|**2,57,870**| Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the appellant/claimant is awarded an additional compensation of ``` MACA NO. 2857 OF 2019 ``` ``` 8 ``` **Rs.96,240/-** (Rupees ninety six thousand two hundred and forty only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount together with interest and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The claimant shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and bank details before the respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellant at the earliest in accordance with law. Sd/- **SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE** ## **SMA**