Roy Jacob v. Majeed @ Abdul Majeed, Baiju, National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: SOPHY THOMAS
Judgment Date: 2023-03-09
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation of Rs.1,70,780; insurer directed to deposit the enhanced amount in the appellant's bank account with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit (excluding 796 days of delay in filing the appeal) within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting liabilities, if any, of the appellant towards tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund; deposit to be in terms of Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06.09.2019 and clarified in O.M. No.D1/62475/2016 dated 07.11.2019.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; No order as to costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Roy Jacob

Respondents

Majeed @ Abdul Majeed
Baiju
National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Mohan Jacob George
• Smt. P.V. Parvathi
• Smt. Reena Thomas

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. E.M. Joseph

Case Synopsis & Summary

Roy Jacob, the appellant, sustained serious injuries in a road traffic accident on 15 December 2007 when the motorcycle KL-12-C-3693 ridden by the first respondent collided with his bike at Ambalavayal. He claimed compensation of Rs 5,00,000 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, which awarded Rs 2,45,080. The Tribunal fixed the appellant’s notional income at Rs 3,000 per month and computed loss of earnings for six months, despite evidence suggesting higher earning capacity. The appellant contended that, by 2007 standards, a person in his position (an electronic technician) could earn Rs 6,000 monthly, citing Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd (AIR 2011 SC 2951). The High Court agreed, determining the notional income should be Rs 6,000 per month. It then calculated loss of earnings for eight months (Rs 48,000) and noted Rs 18,000 already paid, leaving Rs 30,000 to be enhanced. The court also increased bystander expenses to Rs 6,000 and extra nourishment to Rs 2,500, deducting Rs 700 already paid. For permanent disability (18%), with a multiplier of 16, the compensation rose to Rs 2,07,360, with Rs 1,03,680 already paid, yielding Rs 1,03,680 additional. Pain and suffering rose by Rs 10,000, and loss of amenities by Rs 20,000. The aggregate enhanced amount became Rs 1,70,780. The insurer was directed to deposit this amount with interest within two months, subject to deductions as per circulars.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that his income in 2007 should be fixed at Rs 6,000 per month (notional income) based on Ramachandrappa; Tribunal erred in fixing Rs 3,000; Court should compensate with enhanced amounts for loss of earnings and other heads; The appellant asserts 18% permanent disability with multiplier 16 resulting in higher sum; The court should consider 8 months of loss of earnings; Additional allowances for bystander expenses and nourishment; Interest arrangements on deposit.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contest the Tribunal’s reasoning and maintain the award as just within the standard heads; They rely on evidence and argue the insurer’s liability is not in dispute; They defend the Tribunal’s initial notional income and contend there is no justification to increase income beyond Rs 3,000 per month; Overall stance is that the existing award and compensation structure should be preserved unless shown to be erroneous.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	AIR 2011 SC 2951	Positive	Court adopts the reasoning in Ramachandrappa to fix notional income at Rs.6,000 per month for 2007, endorsing the precedent.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1944 ``` ``` MACA NO. 1279 OF 2014 ``` ``` AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 163/2009 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESIONS & ``` ## **`MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA`** ## **`APPELLANT/PETITIONER:`** ``` ROY JACOB AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.JACOB, KUMBALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHUKKAD, AMBALAVAYAL AMSOM, SULTHANBATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673 592. BY ADVS. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1MAJEED @ ABDUL MAJEED AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.HANEEFA, MADATHILTHODI HOUSE, NELLARACHAL, WAYANAD DISTRICT - 673 593. (DRIVER OF KL-12C-3693 MOTOR CYCLE) 2BAIJU FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN, AGE NOT KNOWN, VADUVANKALATHIL HOUSE, VADUVANCHAL POST, AMBALAVAYAL, WAYANAD - 673 581.(OWNER OF KL-12-C-3693 MOTOR CYCLE) 3NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. VIGNESWARA BUILDING, NEAR OVER BRIDGE, 7, PUDUKKOTTAI ROAD, THIRUCHIRAPPALLY, TAMILNADU - 621 315. (INSURER OF KL-12C-3693 MOTOR CYCLE). ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.E.M.JOSEPH ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO.1279 OF 2014 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 09[th] day of March, 2023 The appeal has been preferred by the claimant in O.P. (MV) No.163/2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Wayanad, Kalpetta, assailing the award on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. 2. The appellant met with a road traffic accident on 15.12.2007, at 10 pm, while he was riding a motor bike at Ambalavayal. KL-12-C-3693, motor bike ridden by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against his motor cycle, and he fell down and sustained multiple fractures including fracture of right femur, right patella, right Tibia and right Zygomatic complex, and he was hospitalised for 7 days. He suffered permanent disability of 18% due to the accident. He approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. Five lakhs. But the Tribunal awarded only Rs.2,45,080/- and hence this appeal. ``` MACA NO.1279 OF 2014 ``` ``` 3 ``` 3. The 1[st] respondent was the rider, 2[nd] respondent was the owner, and 3[rd] respondent was the insurer of the offending motor cycle. Respondents 1 and 2 remained _ex parte._ The accident, injuries and the policy of the offending motor cycle are not in dispute. 4. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A11 and C1 were marked. 5. Now let us see whether any interference is warranted in the impugned award. 6. Heard learned counsel Sri.Mohan Jacob George, appearing for the appellant and Sri.E.M.Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent – Insurer. 7. The appellant who was examined as PW1 before the Tribunal, deposed that, he was a 35 year old electronic technician earning monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. But the Tribunal fixed his notional income @ Rs.3,000/-. It is true that no documents were produced by him to prove his job or ``` MACA NO.1279 OF 2014 ``` ``` 4 ``` income. But an electronic technician in the year 2007, might have been earning a monthly income of more than Rs.3,000/-. Going by the decision **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951]** , even a casual laborer was eligible to get his notional income fixed @ Rs.6,000/- per month in the year 2007. So, this Court is inclined to fix the notional income of the appellant @ Rs.6,000/- per month. 8. He suffered Fracture of right femur, right patella, right Tibia, right metatarsals 2[nd] , 3[rd] , 4[th ] & 5[th] and also fracture right Zygomatic complex. According to the appellant, he was not able to do any job for more than a year. But the Tribunal took ‘loss of earnings’ only for 6 months. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant, this Court think it just to assess his loss of earning for a period of 8 months @ Rs.6,000/-. That would come to Rs.48,000/- ( 6,000 x 8 ). He was already paid Rs.18,000/- under the head loss of earnings. ``` MACA NO.1279 OF 2014 ``` ``` 5 ``` So he is eligible to the balance amount of Rs.30,000/- as enhanced compensation under the head ‘loss of earnings’. 9. He was hospitalised only for 7 days and that may be the reason for the Tribunal to award Rs.700/- towards bystander expenses and extra nourishment. He had suffered multiple fractures including fracture of right femur, and he might have been under rest and extra nourishment even after discharge from hospital. Considering that fact, this Court is inclined to award Rs.6,000/- towards bystander expenses. After deducting Rs.700/- already paid, he is eligible to get the balance amount of Rs.5,300/-. For extra nourishment also, this Court is inclined to award Rs.2,500/-. After deducting Rs.700 already paid. He is eligible to get Rs.1,800/- under the head ‘Extra nourishment’. 10. Towards compensation for permanent disability, the Tribunal took his notional income as Rs.3,000/-. By taking his monthly income as Rs.6,000/- and multiplier as 16, for ``` MACA NO.1279 OF 2014 ``` ``` 6 ``` 18% disability, the compensation for permanent disability can be assessed as Rs.2,07,360/-. He was already paid Rs.1,03,680/-. So he is eligible to get the balance Rs.1,03,680/- as enhanced compensation for ‘permanent disability’. 11. Towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/-. Considering the multiple fractures suffered by the appellant, and the period of hospitalisation and the subsequent period of rest, this Court is inclined to award Rs.10,000/- more under the head ‘Pain and sufferings’. 12. Towards loss of amenities, the Tribunal awarded no amount. Since the appellant suffered multiple fractures and sustained permanent disability of 18%, this Court is inclined to award Rs.20,000/- towards ‘loss of amenities‘. 13. The compensation awarded under other heads seems to be reasonable and so it needs no interference. ``` MACA NO.1279 OF 2014 ``` ``` 7 ``` |Head of claim|Amount awarded by the Tribunal|Amount awarded in the appeal|Amounts deducted in appeal|Difference to be drawn as enhanced compensation| |---|---|---|---|---| |Loss of earnings|Rs.18,000/-|Rs.48,000/-|---|Rs.30,000/-| |By stander expenses|Rs.700/-|Rs.6,000/-||Rs.5,300/-| |Extra nourishment|Rs.700/-|Rs.2,500/-||Rs.1,800/-| |Permanent disability|Rs.1,03,680/-|Rs.2,07,360/-||Rs.1,03,680/-| |Pain and Sufferings|Rs.20,000/-|Rs.30,000/-||Rs.10,000/-| |Loss of amenities|---|Rs.20,000/-||Rs.20,000/-| |Total||||**Rs.1,70,780/-**| 14. The appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.1,70,780/- ( 30,000 + 5,300 + 1,800 + 1,03,680 + 10,000 + 20,000 ). 15. The policy is admitted and the liability of the insurer to compensate the injured is not in dispute. So, the 3[rd] ``` MACA NO.1279 OF 2014 ``` ``` 8 ``` respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,70,780/- in the bank account of the appellant with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit (excluding 796 days of delay in filing the appeal), within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The deposit must be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06.09.2019 and clarified in O.M. No.D1/62475/2016 dated 07.11.2019 after deducting the liabilities, if any, of the appellant towards Tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- **SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE** ded/09.03.2023