High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-07-05The appeal is allowed.

Raja J. v. Sakthivel, Perumal Nadar & The National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA.1265/2012

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Basant Balaji
Judgment Date: 2023-07-05
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court allowed the appeal in part, enhancing the award by Rs.1,08,000 and directing interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization. All other Tribunal findings were confirmed. The appellant must provide bank details within one month for NEFT/RTGS transfer; if not provided, no interest will accrue on the enhanced amount beyond the stipulated period. If the enhanced amount exceeds the petition’s claim, the appellant must pay the balance court fee. If the insurer fails to deposit the enhanced amount, interest shall continue at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the petition date.
Final Disposition: The appeal is allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Raja J., S/o. Jayaram, Balcony Bhavan, Maradu Village, Maradu P.O, Maradu Kara, Kanayannoor Taluk, Ernakulam District.

Respondents

Sakthivel, S/o. Perumal, Door No.26/58, Rottikkadal Kara, Vanpara, Anamala Village, Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu-641 002
Perumal Nadar, S/o. Thoraiswami, 5-Pudumall Road, Thirupur District, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641 002
The National Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by its Manager, 175-A, Greater Cotton Road, Tuticorin-528 002, Tamil Nadu.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Saji Varghese Kakkattumattathil

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Lal George
• Adv. Sebastian Varghese - R3

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA No.1265 of 2012) arising from a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed by Raja J., the appellant-petitioner, seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident on 24 January 2004 near Kundanoor Junction, Ernakulam. The bicycle-rider claimant was hospitalized for about 48 days with multiple surgeries, disrupting his education as a college student. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, awarded Rs. 2,67,880 with 9% interest, finding the respondents liable, with the 3rd respondent (the insurer) contesting the claim. In appeal, the appellant’s counsel urged a higher monthly income, arguing he was 18 at the time and earned through tutoring; he relied on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., to argue for Rs.4,500 as monthly income for a similar class of labour; he claimed 15% permanent disability justifying a higher multiplier (18) and recalculated compensation for loss of earnings, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and future treatment. The insurer argued against inflated sums and for keeping Tribunal findings. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, enhancing several heads, and directed an overall enhanced award of Rs.1,08,000 with 8% interest, while confirming other Tribunal findings. The order also prescribed NEFT/RTGS transfer and set-off for any already-paid amounts, with conditions on deposit and court-fee if necessary.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 13 SCC 236 - doctrine on determining income for compensation and multiplier application in motor accident claims.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income at Rs.3,000 per month; though he was 18 at the time and earned Rs.5,000 by tutoring, no evidence was produced; he relies on Ramachandrappa to fix Rs.4,500 per month for a coolie in 2004 and argues 15% permanent disability with multiplier 18. He recalculates: permanent disability 1,45,800 (4,500 x 12 x 18 x 15/100); loss of earnings adjusted to Rs.18,000 (correcting the Tribunal’s figure); seeks higher amounts for pain and suffering (Rs.2,50,000), loss of amenities (Rs.2,00,000) and future treatment (Rs.1,00,000). The evidence showed long inpatient treatment and subsequent bipolar disorder, which the appellant attributes to the accident, and seeks enhanced head-wise compensation accordingly.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contest the enhanced amounts, submit that the Tribunal’s findings should stand, challenge the higher income and head-wise claims, and rely on the insurer’s position that the amount claimed was excessive. Insurance counsel also emphasizes that negligence findings and quantum should be maintained as per the Tribunal, subject to lawful enhancement if warranted by evidence.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	The court relied on Ramachandrappa to determine reasonable monthly income for a young claimant in 2004, adopting Rs.4,500 per month for calculation of 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 Raja J. v. Sakthivel, Perumal Nadar & The 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 BASANT BALAJI ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1945 ``` ## **`M.A.C.A. NO.1265 OF 2012`** ``` THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM) ``` ## **`APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP(MV):`** ``` RAJA J., S/O.JAYARAM, BALCONY BHAVAN, MARADU VILLAGE, MARADU P.O, MARADU KARA, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV):`** ``` 1SAKTHIVEL, S/O.PERUMAL, DOOR NO.26/58, ROTTIKKADAL KARA, VANPARA, ANAMALA VILLAGE, COIMBATORE DISTRICT, TAMILNADU-641 002 2PERUMAL NADAR, S/O.THORAISWAMI, 5-PUDUMALL ROAD, THIRUPUR DISTRICT, COIMBATORE, TAMILNADU-641 002 3THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, MANAGER, 175-A, GREATER COTTON ROAD, TUTICORIN-528 002, TAMIL NADU. BY ADVS. SRI.LAL GEORGE SRI. SEBASTIAN VARGHESE - R3 ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 _MACA.1265/2012_ ## JUDGMENT _Dated: 5[th ] July, 2023)_ The appellant was the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.)No.2090 of 2004 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The claim was filed under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, for the injuries sustained in a motor accident on 24.01.2004 at 7.15 a.m. 2. The petitioner was standing on the eastern side of the N.H.47 road near Kundanoor Junction on a bicycle. The vehicle driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner came from the northern side and hit the appellant/petitioner and his bicycle, and the petitioner was thrown away to the hard surface of the road; thereby the appellant/petitioner sustained severe injuries. He was taken to Lisie Hospital, Ernakulam, and admitted there as an inpatient for 48 days. On three occasions, he was admitted as an inpatient and had undergone operations. He was studying at Government College, Thrippunithura, at the time of the accident, and it has substantially affected his studies. An 3 _MACA.1265/2012_ amount of Rs.13,66,000/- was claimed in the petition, but limited to Rs.8,00,000/-. 3. 1[st] respondent was the driver, 2[nd] respondent was the owner, and 3[rd] respondent was the insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondents 1 and 2 remain ex-parte. 3[rd] respondent alone filed a written statement denying the negligence on the part of the lorry driver and stressing the reason for the accident as negligence on the part of the petitioner. The insurance of the vehicle was admitted but denied the claim, stating that it was exorbitant. The Tribunal relying upon the oral evidence of PWs1 and 2 and Exts.A1 to A10, awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,67,880/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal on various heads, this appeal is filed. 4 _MACA.1265/2012_ 4. Heard Sri.Saji Varghese Kakkattumattathil, counsel for the appellant/petitioner and Sri.Sebastian Varghese, counsel for the 3[rd] respondent Insurance company. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.Saji Varghese Kakkattumattathil argues that the petitioner was 18 years at the time of the accident and was earning an income of Rs.5,000/- by taking tuition to the students. However, no evidence was produced to substantiate the same. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income as Rs.3,000/-. The counsel for the appellant submitted that, even though there is no evidence, the Tribunal should have taken Rs.5,000/- as income. Going by the decision reported in _Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236]_ , the monthly income to be taken for a coolie who met with an accident in the year 2004 is Rs.4,500/-, hence I am inclined to take the said income as the monthly income of the petitioner. He has suffered 15% permanent disability since the petitioner was aged 18 years at the time of the accident, the 5 _MACA.1265/2012_ multiplier to be adopted is 18, but the Tribunal has taken the multiplier as 17. Hence, the compensation for permanent disability can be calculated as 4500x12x18x15/100 = 1,45,800/-. 6. Regarding loss of earnings, the Tribunal takes the income as Rs.3,000/- per month, but on page 6 of the Judgment, the amount awarded is shown as 18,000/-. The amount will come to only Rs.9,000/-, it is by mistake shown as Rs.18,000/-. Taking note of the injuries sustained, I am inclined to take the loss of earnings for 4 months at the rate of Rs.4,500/-, which will work out to Rs.4500x4 = 18,000/-. 7. It can be seen that the petitioner was admitted as an inpatient on three occasions from 29.01.2004 to 13.03.2004, 11.05.2004 to 17.05.2004, and three operations were conducted on 24.01.2004, 29.01.2004, and 12.05.2004. Therefore, he had to undergo much pain and suffering when he was admitted to the hospital and thereafter. Hence, the appellant/petitioner claimed Rs.2,50,000/-under head of shock, pain, and sufferings, but the Tribunal awarded only 6 _MACA.1265/2012_ Rs.25,000/-. Taking note of the injury sustained and the suffering he had to undergo, I am inclined to enhance a sum of Rs.25,000/- more under the head of pain and suffering. 8. As far as the loss of amenities is concerned, it is seen that, after the accident, he was on treatment for bipolar disorder from 24.09.2004 to 17.08.2009, and PW2 Psychiatrist attached to Lisie Hospital was examined and issued Ext.A9 certificate. It is to be noted that the accident happened on 24.01.2004, and the treatment started on 24.09.2004. Hence, before the accident, the petitioner not having any bipolar disorder. Hence he can attribute the bipolar disorder happened due to the accident he had met on 24.01.2004. Under the head of loss of amenities, and enjoyment in life, the Tribunal granted only Rs.15,000/- against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. The said amount of Rs.15,000/- is on the lower side. Therefore, it is enhanced by a further sum of Rs.15,000/-. 7 _MACA.1265/2012_ 9. For continuing and future treatment, though the claim was Rs.1,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.15,000/- under the said head. Considering the treatment he had to undergo, and the treatment he had taken in the future for bipolar disorder, I am inclined to enhance a sum of Rs.5,000/- more under the said head. Accordingly, the following enhancements are made to the award passed by the Tribunal: |_Sl._ _No._|_Head of Claim_|_Amt. Awarded by_ _Tribunal (Rs.)_|_Amt. enhanced_ _in appeal (Rs.)_| |---|---|---|---| |_1._|Loss of permanent disability|91,800/-|1,45,800/-| |2.|loss of amenities and enjoyment in life|15,000/-|30,000/-| |3.|Pain and sufferings|25,000/-|50,000/-| |4.|Future Treatment|15,000/-|20,000/-| |5.|Loss of earnings|9,000/- (wrongly shown as 18000)|18,000/-| |||1,55,800/-|2,63,800/-| ||_Total :_|_2,63,800 – 1,55,800 =_|_1,08,000/-_| 8 _MACA.1265/2012_ In the result, the appeal is allowed, and the appellant is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs1,08,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. If any amounts have already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. All other findings entered by the Tribunal stand confirmed. The appellant/petitioner shall produce the details of the Bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, and the amount shall be transferred to the Bank account directly through NEFT/RTGS mode, within a period of one month thereafter. If the Bank account is not furnished within the time stipulated, it is made clear that no interest shall run on the enhanced amount after the period stipulated by this Court. If the enhanced amount is higher than the amount claimed in the Original Petition, the appellant will have to pay the balance court fee. However, if the Insurance Company fails to deposit the amount as 9 _MACA.1265/2012_ directed, interest shall run at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of the petition. The appeal is allowed. _Sd/-_ BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE ss