Ranjith Krishna v. C.Chakkunni and others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: R. Basant
M. C. Hari Rani
Judgment Date: 2011-10-20
Court Decision / Holding: This appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is entitled to a further Rs. 32,840 in addition to the tribunal’s award, with the calculation breakdown reflecting enhanced compensation for loss of earnings, reduced earning capacity, and loss of amenities. The entire amount shall carry interest as directed by the tribunal, but no interest shall be payable on the enhanced amount for the period of delay (527 days). Proportionate costs shall be paid as per Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K. All other tribunal directions are upheld.
Final Disposition: Partly Allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ranjith Krishna

Respondents

C. Chakkunni
Jayaraj
National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. P. Santhosh (Poduval)
• Smt. R. Rajitha

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Lal George (for R3)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Ranjith Krishna, a 20-year-old computer teacher, sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 13/10/2003. He claimed compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act; the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, awarded Rs. 1,15,013 under heads including loss of earnings, transportation, nourishment, medical treatment, bystander assistance, clothing damages, pain and suffering, and disability compensation. The appellant contends that the tribunal erred in calculating monthly income as Rs. 2,500 and not awarding compensation under loss of amenities, despite evidence of permanent disability. He relies on decisions such as Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar and Others and Laxmi Devi v. Mohammad Tabbar to argue that monthly income should be at least Rs. 3,000 and that disability’s impact extends beyond earning capacity. The tribunal assessed the disability as 7% in earning capacity though Ext. A9 indicated 12% disability, and it did not adequately compensate for loss of amenities. The High Court agrees that the income should be taken at least at Rs. 3,000 per month and that the age of the claimant (20-25) warrants a multiplier of 17 under the second schedule of the MV Act. It determines that the appellant is entitled to an additional Rs. 32,840 for loss of earnings, enhanced earning capacity reduction, and loss of amenities, resulting in a revised total and clarifies cost and interest directions. The appeal is allowed in part and the enhanced amount is awarded.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act) – Second Schedule (multipliers for ages)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant argued that the tribunal erred in assuming a monthly income of Rs. 2,500 instead of at least Rs. 3,000, citing Lata Wadhwa and Laxmi Devi to justify a higher earnings figure. He contended that the tribunal erred by not awarding loss of amenities and that the disability reduction in earning capacity (7%) did not reflect the 12% disability certificate Ext. A9. The claimant’s age (20) and the second schedule multiplier (17) should be applied, increasing compensation and recognizing the enduring impact of disability.

Contentions of Respondents

The document records that counsel for the appellant and the insurance company were heard, but does not provide explicit detailing of the respondents’ arguments in the excerpt; the insurance company was named as the party bearing liability in the impugned award.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar and Others	2001 SC 3218	Positive	Court relied on this decision to justify increasing the claimant’s monthly income to Rs. 3,000.
Laxmi Devi v. Mohammad Tabbar	2008 ACJ 1488	Positive	Cited to support higher income baseline used for calculation.
Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K	2011(3) KLT 943	Positive	Court followed Jeena for proportionate costs allocation.

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 THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 1400 of 2011() ----------------------OPMV.32/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... ## APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------- RANJITH KRISHNA, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, AYINATH HOUSE, KOORKKANCHERRY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS - --------------- 1. C.I.CHAKKUNNI, S/O.ITTIYARA, - 3/64, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, VARANDARAPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 303. 2. JAYARAJ, S/O.RAGHAVAN, KUZHICHAMADATHIL HOUSE, ALAGAPPA NAGAR, MANNAMPETTA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLLANNUR DEVASY SMARAKA BUILDING, THRISSUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001. ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * *** M.A.C.A.No.1400 of 2011 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of October 2011 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **R.BASANT,J** Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for the personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 13/10/2003. According to him, he was a computer teacher. He was aged 20 years. His monthly income, according to him, was Rs.4,500/- per month. He had suffered multiple injuries including fracture of the fibular ligament. He was an inpatient for a total period of two weeks in two spells. Above knee, POP Cast was applied. Against a total claim limited to Rs.2,00,000/-, the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,15,013/as per the details given in paragraph 11 of the impugned award which we extract below: |**_Sl.No._**|**_Head_**|**_Amount (Rs.)_**| |---|---|---| |1.|Loss of earning|7,500/-| |2.|Transportation|1,500/-| |3.|Extra nourishment|1,000/-| |4.|Damages to clothing|500/-| |5.|Treatment|51,013/-| |6.|Bystander|2,000/-| 2 M.A.C.A.No.1400 of 2011 |**_Sl.No._**|**_Head_**|**_Amount (Rs.)_**| |---|---|---| |7.|Pain and suffering|20,000/-| |8.|Disability(Rs.30,000/- x 7%x15)|31,500/-| ||Total|**1,15,013/-**| 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. The insurance company/3[rd] respondent has been made entirely liable under the impugned award. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the monthly income of the appellant was reckoned as Rs.2,500/- only by the tribunal. This is grossly insufficient. Going by the decision in **Lata Wadhwa and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [2001 SC 3218]** and **Laxmi Devi v. Mohammad Tabbar [2008 ACJ 1488],** the tribunal ought to have accepted, at any rate, an amount not less than Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income, contends counsel. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends that no compensation has been awarded under the head of loss of amenities. The tribunal actually came to the conclusion that 3 M.A.C.A.No.1400 of 2011 the appellant had suffered permanent disability. The certificate Ext.A9 and the oral evidence of PW1 suggest that physical disability was suffered to the tune of 12%. But the tribunal accepted only 7% as the reduction in earning capacity. We have been taken through the relevant disability certificate. We are satisfied that the tribunal has committed no error warranting appellate interference in coming to the conclusion that the reduction in earning capacity suffered is only 7%. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant finally contends that the tribunal has erred grossly in not awarding any amount as compensation under the head of loss of amenities. Physical disability suffered by a person has two fold reflections on his life. It reduces his earning capacity. It also reduces and impairs the quality of enjoyment of life. The appellant, aged only 20 years, will have to live and endure this disability for the entire rest of his life. Before the tribunal, there was no satisfactory evidence about the date of birth of the appellant. Annexure A is produced before this Court to confirm that date of birth is 04/07/1983. The controversy is only about his precise age i.e. on which side of 20 years, he is. We are satisfied that he can safely be 4 M.A.C.A.No.1400 of 2011 reckoned as one belonging to the age group 20-25 years for whom 17 is the multiplier stipulated under the second schedule to the M.V.Act. We are not persuaded to agree that the amount awarded under any other head deserves or warrants interference. 6. We further clarify that proportionate cost awarded by the tribunal shall be calculated as per the decision in J **eena v. Satheesh Babu.K [2011(3) KLT 943].** The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of 32,840/- as compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the tribunal. i) Loss of earnings Rs.1,500/[Rs.9,000/- (Rs.3,000/- x 3) minus Rs.7,500/-] ii) Compensation for reduction in earning capacity Rs.11,340/[Rs.42,840/- (Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 17 x 7/100) minus Rs.31,500/-] iii) Loss of amenities Rs.20,000/-----------------Total **Rs.32,840/========** 7. In the result, a) This appeal is allowed in part. 5 M.A.C.A.No.1400 of 2011 b) Appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.32,840/- (Rupees thirty two thousand eight hundred and forty 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 directed by the tribunal. But, no interest shall be payable on the enhanced amount of compensation for the period of delay, that is 527 days as held in the order condoning the delay in filing the appeal. d) Proportionate cost before the tribunal shall be paid as per the decision in **Jeena** (Supra). e) 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.1400 of 2011 6 7 M.A.C.A.No.1400 of 2011 **K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.** .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010