Rony P. D. v. Sajith E.B., Roy and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (MACA No. 1027 of 2011)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: R. Basant
K. Surendra Mohan
Judgment Date: 2011-11-02
Court Decision / Holding: (a) This appeal is allowed in part. (b) The appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs. 63,372/- as compensation in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. (c) The entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period specified by the Tribunal. (d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; additional compensation Rs. 63,372; interest as per Tribunal; other directions upheld

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rony P. D.

Respondents

Sajith E.B.
Roy
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. P. V. Chandra Mohan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Rajesh Thomas

Case Synopsis & Summary

The claimant sustained severe injuries in a motor accident on 23 November 2002, including fractures of the left femur, tibia and fibula, and a temporal traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, requiring hospitalization for 16 days and surgical procedures such as interlocking nailing and calcaneal pintraction. He claimed compensation under a total demand of Rs 4,63,750 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT). The Tribunal awarded Rs 1,65,808 and directed liability on the insurer. The appellant challenged the quantum, contending that the Tribunal erred in fixing monthly income at Rs 2,500 given his trade as plumber and electrician, and relied on Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (AIR 2001 SC 3218) and Laxmi Devi v. Mohammad Tabbar (2008 ACJ 1488) to justify a higher income; the court agreed that in 2002 the monthly income could reasonably be Rs 3,000, thus increasing the quantum for loss of earnings and earning capacity. The Tribunal’s reduction of disability from 20% to 10% was found unjust, and the court adopted 14% as the loss of earning capacity. It also awarded under loss of amenities (Rs 20,000) and increased medical and miscellaneous expenses (Rs 70,000). An additional Rs 63,372 was awarded, while pain and suffering (Rs 30,000) was upheld. The appeal was allowed in part with directions that interest follow the Tribunal’s order and that other directions stand. Shortfall in the quantum is rectified by a partial enhancement.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the MACT erred in fixing the monthly income at Rs 2,500 for a plumber/electrician in 2002. He relies on Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (AIR 2001 SC 3218) and Laxmi Devi v. Mohammad Tabbar (2008 ACJ 1488) to support a higher income, arguing that reasonable inferences should yield Rs 3,000 per month. He also challenges the Tribunal’s reduction of disability from 20% to 10%, contending that 14% is more appropriate for the loss of earning capacity. The appellant requests compensation for loss of amenities and advocates higher medical and miscellaneous expenses (noting implants and probable future costs).

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents/counsels argue that the quantum fixed by the MACT is generally reasonable and that the evidence supports the Tribunal’s findings. They contend that the reduction from 20% to 10% was appropriate given the evidence and that the overall award already reflects the injury's impact, with pain and suffering reasonably assessed. They seek that the Tribunal’s orders remain largely intact and that no further enhancement is warranted beyond the amounts already awarded.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar	AIR 2001 SC 3218	Positive	Cited to support higher assessment of income/earning capacity in similar personal injury claims.
Laxmi Devi v. Mohammad Tabbar	2008 ACJ 1488	Positive	Cited to justify approach to income estimation and earning capacity in the given year.

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 MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1027 of 2011() ----------------------- O.P.(MV) NO.3007/03 OF M.A.C.T., THRISSUR. APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER. ----------------------------------- RONY.P.D., S/O.P.V.DEVASSY, PUTHOOR HOUSE, P.O.PARAPPUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 552. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): - --------------- 1. SAJITH.E.B., S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, EDATHARA HOUSE, KOONAMOOCHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001. 2. ROY, S/O.DEVASSY,PUTHOOR HOUSE, - P.O.PARAPPUR, THOLLUR, THRISSUR-680 001. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PARK HOUSE, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR-680 001. ADV. SRI.RAJESH THOMAS FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.** **------------------------------------------------M.A.C.A. No. 1027 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------Dated this the 2[nd] day of November, 2011** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Basant,J.** The claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 23/11/2002. He had suffered multiple injuries including fracture of left femur, fracture of tibia and fibula (left) and fracture of left maxilla. There was also temporal traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage. He was treated by interlocking nailing of both tibia and femur. Calcaneal pintraction was also resorted to. He was an inpatient for a period of 16 days. He allegedly suffered permanent disability. The Doctor, who issued Ext.A9 certificate, was examined. That showed that the whole body disability was assessed at 20%. The Tribunal by the impugned award, against a total claim of `4,63,750/-, directed payment of an amount of `1,65,808/- as compensation as per the details given in paragraph-13 which we extract below: ## **M.A.C.A. No. 1027 of 2011** -: 2 :- |**Sl.No,.**|**Head of claim**|**Amount** **awarded**|**Basis vital details in a** **nutshell**| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earning (total)|12500/-|..| |2|Loss of earning (partial)|..|..| |3|Medical and miscellaneous expenses|63808/-|..| |4|Future treatment|..|..| |5|Bystander's expenses|4000/-|..| |6|Transportation expenses|2000/-|..| |7|Extra-nourishment|2000/-|..| |8|Damage to clothing etc.,|500/-|..| |9|Pain and suffering|30000/-|..| |10|Disability. Loss of earning power, Loss of amenities, Discomfort|51000/-|2500 x 12 x 17 x 10/100| |Total||**1,65,808/-**|| 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company who has been made entirely liable under the impugned award to satisfy the award. Challenge is raised only against the quantum of compensation awarded. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant, first of all, submits that the Tribunal has erred grossly in reckoning the monthly income of the appellant at `2,500/-. He was a Plumber and Electrician. In any view of the matter, the monthly income reckoned by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate, contends counsel. The learned counsel brings to out notice the decisions in **Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar** ## **M.A.C.A. No. 1027 of 2011** -: 3 :- (AIR 2001 SC 3218) and **Laxmi Devi v. Mohammad Tabbar** (2008 ACJ 1488). Reasonable inferences ought to have been drawn by the Tribunal, contends counsel. We agree that the monthly income of the claimant/appellant in the year 2002 could safely have been reckoned at `3,000/-. The quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity will therefore have to be proportionately enhanced. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends that the Tribunal erred grossly in reducing 20% physical disability certified by P.W.1 in Ext.A9 and accepting the same as only 10%. This is done arbitrarily, it is lamented. The Tribunal appears to have been impressed by the fact that the appellant gave answers which did not suggest any loss of memory which is one item of disability reckoned by P.W.1 to assess 20% disability in Ext.A9. In any view of the matter, the reduction in earning capacity from 20% to 10% is not justified, contends counsel. 5. Physical disability and reduction in earning capacity are not synonymous and the Tribunal cannot be found fault with for not accepting 20% as the resultant reduction in earning capacity. However, taking into account the details available from Ext.A9 as also the evidence of the author of Ext.A9, we are satisfied that ## **M.A.C.A. No. 1027 of 2011** -: 4 :- slashing down the reduction in earning capacity from 20% to 10% is not justified. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that 14% can safely be reckoned as the extent of reduction in earning capacity. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant then points out that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of amenities, even though the physical disability is proved and accepted by the Tribunal. The permanent disability suffered by a person leaves behind two fold reflections on his life. It reduces his earning capacity. It also impairs and reduces the quality of enjoyment of life which the victim can aspire for the rest of his life. We are satisfied that under the head of loss of amenities appropriate amount of compensation deserves to be awarded to the appellant, a person aged below 25 years. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends that only the actual bills produced have been taken into reckoning while awarding compensation under the head of medical and miscellaneous expenses. The Tribunal has not even taken note of the fact that implants were in situ and the Doctor had advised removal of implants. We are satisfied that under the head of medical and miscellaneous expenses a total amount of `70,000/can safely be awarded (including probable future expenses). ## **M.A.C.A. No. 1027 of 2011** -: 5 :- 8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of `63,372/- (Rupees sixty three thousand three hundred and seventy two only) as compensation in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal; |1.|Loss of earnings||| |---|---|---|---| ||(`3,000/- x 5 minus `12,500/-)|-|`2,500/-| |2.|Medical and miscellaneous||| ||expenses (`70,000/- minus||| ||(`63,808/-)|-|`6,192/-| |3.|Reduction in earning capacity||| ||(3000 x 12 x 17 x 14/100 =||| ||`85,680/- minus `51,000/-)|-|`34,680/-| |4.|Loss of amenities|-|`20,000/-| ||||------------| ||Total|-|`63,372/-| ||||=====| 9. We are not persuaded to agree that the amount awarded under any other head deserves or warrants interference. We take note of the submission of the learned counsel for the insurance company that already an amount of `30,000/- has been awarded under the head of pain and suffering and that is excessive. Considering the nature of the injuries, nature of procedures undergone, and the period of treatment as inpatient and outpatient, we are satisfied that the amount of compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering is also reasonable. ## **M.A.C.A. No. 1027 of 2011** -: 6 :- ## 10 In the resultz; (a) This appeal is allowed in part. (b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of `63,372/- (Rupees sixty three thousand three hundred and seventy two only) as compensation 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 specified by the Tribunal in the impugned award. (d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. Sd/- **R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge)** **Nan/** **//true copy// P.S. to Judge** **M.A.C.A. No. 1027 of 2011** -: 7 :- ## **R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.** **------------------------------------------------C.M. Appl. No.1584 of 2011 in M.A.C.A. No. 1027 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------Dated this the 2[nd] day of November, 2011** ## **JUDGMENT** This petition is to condone the delay of 24 days in filing the M.A.C.A. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company who has been made entirely liable under the impugned award. We take a lenient view. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. **R. BASANT (Judge)** **K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge)** **Nan/** # **M.A.C.A. No. 1027 of 2011** -: 8 :-