Renjith, S/O Raveendran v. M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 5TH MAGHA, 1944 ``` ``` MACA NO. 3598 OF 2015 ``` ``` AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)NO.193/2012 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL MUVATTUPUZHA ``` ## `APPELLANT/PETITIONER:` ``` RENJITH, S/O RAVEENDRAN AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAKKOCHIRAPUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, RAMAMANGALAM KARA, MARADI VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.L.RAM MOHAN SRI.M.AUBREY ABRAHAM ISAAC ``` ## `RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:` ``` M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD CHERUPUSHPAM BUILDING, PALA, PRESENT ADDRESS: DIVISIONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO.1715, AJAY VIHAR, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN -16. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.A.R.GEORGE SC ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 3598 OF 2015 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## `JUDGMENT` ``` This matter is of the year 2015 and has not ``` ``` been admitted. However, both sides are ad idem that it can be disposed of, after being formally admitted, based on the undisputed evidence on record, handed over by them across the Bar. ``` ``` 2.I, therefore, admit this appeal and ``` ``` proceed to dispose it of finally, with the consent of both sides. ``` ``` 3.The appellant is stated to have been ``` ``` working as a Driver, when he was involved in an ``` ``` accident, with the offending vehicle insured by the respondent – National Insurance Company Ltd. He says that he sustained injuries requiringhospitalizationandprolonged treatment; and therefore, that he preferred a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims ``` ``` MACA NO. 3598 OF 2015 ``` ``` 3 ``` ``` Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for a total amount of Rs.4,50,000/-; but that said Tribunal has awarded only Rs.1,52,356/-, thus constraining him to approach this Court through this appeal. 3.Sri.L.Ram Mohan – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Tribunal erred in adopting Rs.4,500/- as the monthly income of his client and that the amounts granted for “Pain and Suffering” and “Loss of Amenities” are exiguous, going by the nature of injuries sustained by him. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manusha Sreekumar and others v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. [(2022) KHC 7106], to assert that, as per the “Kerala Fair Wages Act”, a driver is classified as a “skilled worker”, thus entitled to a notional salary of Rs.15,600/- per month. He thus prayed that this appeal be allowed. ``` ``` MACA NO. 3598 OF 2015 ``` ``` 4 ``` ``` 4.In response, Sri.A.R.George – learned Standing Counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company, submitted thatManusha Sreekumar (supra) is not applicable in the case at hand, because the appellant does not have a case that ``` ``` the “Kerala Fair Wages Act” is applicable to the Private Sector, where he was concededly employed as a Driver. He argued that, on the contrary, it is the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inRamachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company ``` ``` Limited[(2011) 13 SCC 236], which would be applicable; but conceding very fairly, to a pointed question from this Court, that, going by its ratio, the salary applicable to the appellant in the year 2011, when the accident occurred, was Rs.8,000/-. He then argued that the amounts granted by the Tribunal for “Pain and Suffering” and “Loss of Amenities” are correct, particularly because the petitioner ``` ``` MACA NO. 3598 OF 2015 ``` ``` 5 ``` ``` did not suffer very grievous injuries, which is ``` ``` evident from the fact that his medical treatment charges was only Rs.996/-. ``` ``` 5.I have evaluated the afore submissions ``` ``` on the touchstone of the various documents marked as evidence,which have been made ``` ``` available across the Bar. ``` ``` 6.The primary dispute between the parties ``` ``` is with respect to the income of the appellant. ``` ``` The Tribunal has taken the same to be notionally Rs.4,500/-; while, the appellant claims much larger, relying on the “Kerala Fair ``` ``` Wages Act” and Manusha Sreekumar (supra). ``` ``` 7.I am, however, afraid that I cannot find force in the submissions of the appellant, with respect to his income because, as per Ramachandrappa (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme ``` ``` Court has found that, for a person who is working as a “Coolie” and whose income is ``` ``` otherwise un-ascertainable, the salary to be ``` ``` MACA NO. 3598 OF 2015 ``` ``` 6 ``` ``` taken in the year 2011 is Rs.8,000/-. Of course, in that regard, the Tribunal has erred in adopting it to be Rs.4,500/-. ``` ``` 8.That said, as rightly argued by ``` ``` Sri.A.R.George, Manusha Sreekumar (supra) does not apply to the case of the appellant at all, for more reasons than one; namely, that (a) he has only claimed Rs.10,000/- per month as income; while (b) he has no case that the “Kerala Fair Wages Act” applies to the Private Sector in our State. That apart, he has not led any evidence to establish the actual income drawn by him and all, but has who made as uncorroborated assertion that he was drawing Rs.10,000/- per month. ``` ``` 9.Obviously, therefore, only the ratio in Ramachandrappa(supra) would apply; and thus the appellant can, at the best, claim Rs.8,500/- per month, as his income and no ``` ``` more. ``` ``` MACA NO. 3598 OF 2015 ``` ``` 7 ``` ``` 10.As regards “Pain and Suffering” and ``` ``` “Loss of Amenities”, certainly, going by the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant, ``` ``` marginal increase ought to be granted, which I propose as being Rs.40,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively. ``` ``` In the result, this appeal is allowed and ``` ``` the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the head “Loss of Earnings” is revised to Rs.48,000/- instead of Rs.27,000/-; while that granted under the head “Compensation for PermanentDisability”isenhancedto Rs.1,14,240/-,insteadofRs.64,260/-, ``` ``` reckoning the salary of the appellant has been ``` ``` Rs.8,000/- per annum. As regards the compensation under the heads “Pain and Suffering and “Loss of Amenities”, the amounts are revised as Rs.40,000/- and 30,000/- ``` ``` respectively. ``` ``` In all other respects, the award of the ``` ``` MACA NO. 3598 OF 2015 ``` ``` 8 ``` ``` Tribunal will remain unaltered. ``` ``` Resultantly, the appellant would be entitled to a total additional amount of Rs.85,980/- inclusive of interest; and this shall be deposited by the respondent – Insurance Company within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which the said sum MACA No.3598/2015 shall carry further interest as ordered by the Tribunal. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ## `DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN` ``` JUDGE ``` ``` SAS ```