High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-01-06Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation; ...

Ranjesh Kumar v. Director General of Police & others

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 392 OF 2012

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2022-01-06
Court Decision / Holding: The appellant’s appeal is allowed in part. Notional monthly income is refixed at Rs. 4,500; loss of earnings adjusted to Rs. 18,000. Disability compensation is recalculated to Rs. 86,400 under the Sarla Verma framework. The enhanced compensation totals Rs. 49,500, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition until realization, plus Rs. 5,000 costs. The 3rd respondent (insurer) is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest and costs before the Tribunal within two months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment; upon deposit, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount in accordance with law.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation; insurer to deposit enhanced amount within two months; Tribunal to disburse following deposit.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ranjesh Kumar aged 33 years s/o Vasudevan, Kidarakkuzhy Veedu, Venchempu P.O, Karavoor, Punalur

Respondents

Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram
Manoj s/o Maniyan Pillai, Manoj Bhavan, Pirackal, Karavaloor P.O, Punalur
District Insurance Officer, Kerala State Insurance Department, Thiruvananthapuram
Raveendran s/o Thankappan, Navadhara Bhavan, Kaithakodu P.O, Kundara
Shibu Kumar s/o Gopalan, Vengavila Veedu, Erichikkal, Karavoor P.O, Kollam
Gopalan Vengavila Veedu, Erichikkal, Karavoor P.O, Kollam
Legal representatives of the 5th respondent ( deceased)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. R. Kishore
• Sri. Arun Babu
• Sri. G. Hariprasad

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Joshi Thannikamattom

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arising from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur, in OP(MV) 987/2005. The appellant, Ranjesh Kumar, was injured on 5 March 2005 when his car KL-9A-4536 was struck by a jeep KL-01 B/5204 driven negligently by the 2nd respondent. He received treatment at the Government Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, including an operation on 23 May 2005. The jeep owner was insured with the 3rd respondent; additional respondents were subsequent purchasers, and after the 5th respondent's death, his legal representatives were impleaded. The Tribunal allowed a portion of the petition and awarded Rs. 85,010 with interest and costs to be recovered from the insurer. The appellant challenges the quantum, contending that the Tribunal erred in fixing the notional income at Rs. 2,250 per month and in the calculation of losses for losing earnings and disability. He relies on Ramachandrappa (2011) to justify a higher notional income and on Sarla Verma (2009) to apply the correct multiplier and disability compensation. The respondents largely supported the Tribunal’s determination; the 3rd respondent admitted the policy coverage. The High Court, while upholding insurer liability, re-assessed the figures, increasing the notional income to Rs. 4,500 per month and the loss of earnings to Rs. 18,000, and, applying Sarla Verma, fixed disability at Rs. 86,400. The appeal was allowed in part, with an enhanced total of Rs. 49,500, 7.5% interest, and Rs. 5,000 costs, to be deposited within two months.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income doctrine ( Ramachandrappa )
Multiplier principle for compensation (Sarla Verma)
Disability compensation framework under Sarla Verma (2009)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in fixing the notional monthly income at Rs. 2,250 and under-compensated for loss of earnings and permanent disability. He relies on Ramachandrappa (2011) to justify a higher notional income of Rs. 4,500 and on Sarla Verma (2009) to apply the correct multiplier and disability compensations, arguing that the accident occurred in 2005 and the claimant was 33 years old. He asserts insurer liability since the Jeep was insured and the driver negligent, and seeks higher compensation with costs.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the Tribunal’s assessment was reasonable and that liability lay with the insurer; the policy coverage is admitted, and the evidence supports the Tribunal’s figures. They contend there is no need to drastically alter the quantum beyond proportional adjustments and emphasize compliance with established legal principles for calculating compensation.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	[(2011) 13 SCC 236]	Positive	Used to fix the notional income at Rs. 4,500 for the year of the accident.
Sarla Verma & Otrs v. Delhi Transport Corporation	[(2009) 6 SCC 121]	Positive	Applied as the governing framework for calculating disability compensation with the appropriate multiplier.

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 Ranjesh Kumar v. Director General of Police & others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**MACA NO. 392 OF 2012** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 16TH POUSHA, 1943** **MACA NO. 392 OF 2012** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(MV) 987/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT** ## **CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PUNALUR** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** RANJESH KUMAR AGED 33 YEARS S/O.VASUDEVAN,KIDARAKKUZHY VEEDU, VENCHEMPU P.O, KARAVALOOR, PUNALUR. BY ADVS. SRI.R.KISHORE SRI.ARUN BABU SRI.G.HARIPRASAD ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:** 1 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2 MANOJ S/O.MANIYAN PILLAI, MANOJ BHAVAN, PIRACKAL, KARAVALOOR P.O, PUNALUR 691 305. 3 THE DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER KERALA STTE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 4 RAVEENDRAN T S/O.THANKAPPAN, NAVADHARA BHAVAN, KAITHAKODU P.O, KUNDARA 691 501. 5 SHIBU KUMAR S/O.GOPALAN, VENGAVILA VEEDU, ERICHIKKAL, KARAVALOOR P.O, KOLLAM 691 001. **MACA NO. 392 OF 2012** **2** 6 GOPALAN VENGAVILA VEEDU, ERICHIKKAL, KARAVALOOR P.O, KOLLAM 691 001. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.JOSHI THANNIKKAMATTOM THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **MACA NO. 392 OF 2012** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant was the petitioner in O.P(MV) No.987/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents before the Tribunal. 2. The appellant had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries that he sustained in an accident on 5.3.2005. It was his case that, on the abovesaid day, while he was driving a car bearing Reg.No.KL-9A -4536 through the Anchal-Punalur road, a jeep bearing Reg.No.KL-01 B/5204 (Jeep), driven by the 2[nd ] respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the car. The appellant sustained serious injuries including a fracture on his right femur. He was treated as an inpatient at the Medical College Hospital, **MACA NO. 392 OF 2012** **4** Thiruvananthapuram for the period from 5.3.2005 to 30.3.2005. An operation had to be conducted on 23.5.2005. The Jeep was owned by the 1[st] respondent and insured with the 3[rd] respondent. The additional respondents 4 and 5 were the subsequent purchasers of the Jeep. Pending the claim petition, the 5[th] respondent died and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional respondents 6 and 7. The appellant claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondents. 3. The respondents 1, 2 and 4 to 7 did not contest the proceeding and were set ex parte. 4. The 3[rd] respondent had filed separate written statement admitting that the Jeep had a valid insurance coverage. The 3[rd] respondent disputed the age, occupation and income of the appellant. 5. The appellant had examined himself and two other witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and marked Exts.A1 to A17 in evidence. The respondents did not let in any evidence. **MACA NO. 392 OF 2012** **5** 6. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, allowed the claim petition, in part, by permitting the appellant to recover from the 3[rd] respondent an amount of Rs.85,010/- with interest and costs. 7. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner is in appeal. 8. Heard; Sri.Kishore.R, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 & 3. 9. The sole question that arises for consideration in the appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just? ## **Negligence and liability** 10. Ext.A6 final report filed by the Punalur Police in Crime No.114/2005 substantiates that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2[nd] respondent. Undisputedly, the 3[rd ] respondent was the insurer of the Jeep. The 3[rd] respondent has not proved that the owners of the Jeep had violated the insurance policy conditions. **MACA NO. 392 OF 2012** **6** Therefore, the 3[rd] respondent is to indemnify the liability of the owners of the Jeep to pay the compensation amount to the appellant. ## **Income** 11. The appellant had claimed that he was a driver by profession and was earning a monthly income of Rs.4,500/-/. For the want of materials, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs.2,250/-. 12. In **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited** [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year 2004, at Rs.4,500/- per month. 13. Taking note of the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2005, and that the appellant had claimed that he was earning a monthly income of Rs.4,500/-, I re-fix the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs.4,500/-, as claimed in the claim petition. **MACA NO. 392 OF 2012** **7** ## **Loss of earnings** 14. The Tribunal has held that the appellant was indisposed for a period of four months. In view of the refixation of the appellant's monthly income at Rs.4,500/- I re-fix the compensation for 'loss of earnings' at Rs.18,000/-, instead of Rs.9,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. ## **Loss due to disability** 15. The appellant had produced Ext.A12 disability certificate, wherein, it is certified that the appellant has suffered a permanent disability of 14%. 16. The Tribunal, after appreciating the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant, fixed his functional disability at 10%. I find the assessment made by the Tribunal to be correct and justifiable. However, in view of the re-fixation of the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs.4,500/-, and considering the fact the appellant was 33 years at the time of the accident and the relevant multiplier being '17', as per the law laid down in **MACA NO. 392 OF 2012** **8** ## **Sarla Verma & Otrs Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation** [(2009) 6 SCC 121], I re-fix the compensatin for loss due to disability’ at Rs.86,400/-, instead of Rs.45,900/awarded by the Tribunal. ## **Other heads of compensation** 17. With respect to the other heads of compensation, I find that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable and just compensation. In the result, the appeal is allowed, in part, by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.49,500/- (i.e an amount of Rs.9,000/- towards enhancement of compensation under the head 'loss of earnings' and Rs.40,500/- under the head 'loss due to disability) with interest on the amount of Rs.49,500/- at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and a cost of Rs.5,000/-. The 3[rd] respondent is ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.49,500/- with interest and costs before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the **MACA NO. 392 OF 2012** **9** date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Immediately on the compensation amount being deposited, the Tribunal shall disburse the compensation amount to the appellant/petitioner in accordance with law. Ma/06.01.2022 Sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**