Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited v. Sudheesh Chandran V.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. Jayachandran
Judgment Date: 2022-10-07
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed; the compensation is re-worked: future prospects for 20% disability are obliterated; the revised heads total Rs. 9,57,238 (down from the original figure). Penal interest is set aside. Interest on the enhanced amount will be at 9% per annum from the date of award (29.06.2018), with NEFT/RTGS transfer to the claimant’s bank account within one month. If already paid, set-off shall apply. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount as stated; details of the bank account must be provided within one month, failing which no interest shall accrue on the enhanced amount thereafter.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; modified (re-worked) compensation with penal interest set aside and payment to be made by NEFT/RTGS within one month.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited

Respondents

Sudheesh Chandran V.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. Jacob Mathew

Counsels for Respondents

• Nagaraj Narayanan
• Saijo Hassan
• Benoj C Augustine
• Prathap Pillai
• Rafeeq V.K.
• U. M. Hassan
• P. Parvathy
• Surya P Shaji

Case Synopsis & Summary

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudheesh Chandran V., MACA No.405 of 2019, is an appeal from an award dated 29 June 2018 of the II Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, in O.P.(MV) No.866/2015. The claimant sustained serious injuries in a road accident on 27 January 2015. The insurer contends that the tribunal erred in calculating compensation, particularly in applying 40% future prospects for a 20% permanent disability, and seeks to delete this component because the evidence shows the claimant remained employed in the same job. The appeal also challenges the assessed loss of earnings for six months as excessive given the nature of the injuries; questions the grant of Rs.50,000 for future medical expenses and the necessity of penal interest at 11% if the award sum is not deposited within a month. The High Court examined the evidence, confirmed that the 40% future prospects were not justified, and held that the award should be recalculated without that component. It found the six-month loss of earnings not unreasonable and supported the record supporting future medical expenses due to planned plastic surgery, permitting Rs.50,000 for such costs. The court also held that penal interest is unsustainable, following the decision in Suvija, and directed payment of the revised total amount of Rs. 9,57,238 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of award and NEFT/RTGS transfer within one month.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Argument focused on the tribunal’s grant of 40% future prospects for a 20% disability, contending there was no material to justify such enhancement; contended that the six-month loss of earnings is excessive; questioned the Rs.50,000 for future medical expenses and urged removal of penal interest, arguing for only 9% interest from the date of award. They also urged that any penal interest be unnecessary.

Contentions of Respondents

Submitted that the tribunal’s findings on disability, the need for medical expenses, and the overall quantum were justified and should be maintained; contended for the continued applicability of the award’s terms, including the potential for interest and penalties as directed by the tribunal.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suvija	2018 (1) KLT 410	Positive	Court relied on Suvija to hold penal interest cannot be sustained; followed the principle in the cited decision.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 15TH ASWINA, 1944 MACA NO. 405 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.6.2018 IN OPMV 866/2015 OF II ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD APPELLANT/R3:** ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, COIMBATORE NOW REPRESENTED BY THEIR ZONAL HEAD, SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNASALAI, CHENNAI-600002. BY ADV P.JACOB MATHEW ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:** SUDHEESH CHANDRAN V., S/O VASUDEVAN, HILL VIEW NAGAR, KANJIKKODE P.O., PALAKKAD-678621. BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. SRI.U.M.HASSAN SMT.P.PARVATHY SMT.SURYA P SHAJI THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA 405/2019 2 C.JAYACHANDRAN, J. -----------------------------------MACA No.405 of 2019 ------------------------------------Dated this the 7[th] day of October, 2022 ## J U D G M E N T 1. The third respondent/insurance company is the appellant herein. The award under challenge is the one dated 29.6.2018 in O.P.(M.V.) No.866/2015 of the II Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. The petitioner met with a road accident on 27.1.2015 and sustained serious injuries. The appeal is essentially based on the excessive compensation awarded, according to the appellant. 2. Heard Sri.P.Jacob Mathew, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company and Sri.Nagaraj Narayanan, learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner. Perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant first pointed out that the Tribunal quite erroneously reckoned 40% towards future prospects in the case of an accident MACA 405/2019 3 resulting in injury, without there being any serious disability. The disability assessed is only at 20% as per Ext.X1. The course adopted by the Tribunal is wrong, contends the appellant. This Court can only endorse the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. It has come out in evidence that the claimant is continuing in the same Company even after the accident. There is no material to show that he is entitled to compensation towards loss on account of future prospects, especially when the accident has resulted in injuries, of course of the serious nature. The disability assessed is only at 20%. Therefore, the future prospects awarded @ 40% is liable to be obliterated. It is so ordered. 4. The second ground is with respect to loss of earnings, which has been granted for six months. The period of six months reckoned is on the higher side is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. This Court finds no merit in the said contention of the appellant. Having regard to the serious nature of injuries sustained, the period of 4 MACA 405/2019 six months granted towards the loss of earning is not on the higher side and the contention in this regard is rejected. 5. The next contention is with respect to grant of Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no material, which would suggest that the claimant requires future treatment, in the absence of which, grant of Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expense is not justified. Here again, this Court is not in a position to endorse the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Ext.A9 is the discharge summary issued from the Ganga Medical Centre and Hospital (P) Ltd., Coimbatore. The diagnosis is as follows:- “FOLLOW UP CASE OF CRUSH INJURY LEFT FOOT STATUS – HEALTHY GRACILIS FREE FLAP OVER THE DORSUM AND INFECTED OPEN PPX FRACTURE LEFT GREAT TOE.” The procedure referred to therein is also relevant, which is extracted herein below: MACA 405/2019 5 “DEBRIDEMENT OF THE LEFT FOOT SHORTENING OF THE LEFT GREAT TOE FILLET FLAP COVER LEFT GREAT TOE” This Court would note that the discharge summary pertains to the follow up made by the claimant after the initial treatment undergone. Towards the close of the discharge summary, the claimant has been directed to review on the Plastic OPD, with a further indication with respect to the person to be contacted for assistance for plastic surgery. This Court also would take into account the narrative of the injuries sustained by the respondent/claimant, as contained in paragraph 8 of the impugned award. The above facts, particularly the reference to the review at the Plastic OPD indicating the necessity for a plastic surgery, would justify the grant of Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses. It cannot be conceded as an absolute proposition that except in a case where future treatment is specifically recorded, no amount can be granted towards expenses for future treatment. If future treatment is indicated from a reading of the MACA 405/2019 6 discharge summary and the same is decipherable from the over all circumstances, absence of specific mentioning to that effect would not tie the hands of the Tribunal in the matter of grant of compensation towards future treatment. The said ground is also, therefore, rejected. However, it is clarified that interest on the compensation amount for future treatment will start running from the date of award. 6. The final count is with respect to the grant of interest @ 9%, which itself is on the higher side, according to the learned counsel for the appellant. More over, the appellant also assails the direction to grant penal interest @ 11% per annum, unless the award amount is deposited within a period of one month. Learned counsel would submit that even for receiving copy of the judgment, a period more than one month may be required. It was also contended on the strength of the decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suvija [2018 (1) KLT 410] that grant of penal interest is not sustainable. MACA 405/2019 7 7. Although this Court finds that the grant of interest @ 9% per annum is not on the higher side, having regard to the year in which the accident occurred, this Court endorses the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that grant of penal interest cannot be sustained. The decision in Suvija (supra) is squarely on the point. In the circumstances, that direction, which provides for payment of penal interest, is set aside. 8. In the circumstances, this appeal is allowed and the compensation amount to be granted to the respondent/claimant is re-worked as follows:- |Sl. No.|Head of claim|Amount awarded by the Tribunal(Rs)|Total amount granted in appeal (Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earning|48000|48000| |2|Transportation to hospital|25000|25000| |3|Damage to clothing|2000|2000| |4|Extra nourishment|5000|5000| |5|Medical expenses|360838|360838| |6|Future medical expense|50000|*50000| |7|Expenses of bystander|15000|15000| |8|Compensation for pain and sufferingetc|75000|75000| |9|Compensation for continuing permanent|456960|326400| MACA 405/2019 8 ||disability/loss of disfiguration/loss of earning capacity and future income||(8000x12x17x 20/100)| |---|---|---|---| |10|Compensation for loss of amenities|50000|50000| ||Total|1087798 (rounded to 10,88,000/-)|957238| ||Amount reduced =Rs. 130,762/-(10,88,000-957238)||| * Interest for this amount has to be reckoned from the date of award, i.e. 29.6.2018. 9. The Insurance Company shall pay interest for the amounts awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award. If any amount has already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. The claimants shall produce the details of the Bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and amount shall be transferred to the Bank account directly through NEFT/RTGS mode, within a period of one month thereafter. If the Bank account is not furnished within the time stipulated, it is made clear that no interest shall run on the enhanced amount after the period stipulated by this Court. However, if the MACA 405/2019 9 Insurance Company fails to deposit the amount as directed, interest on enhanced amount shall also run at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of petition. 10. The appeal is allowed as above. Sd/C.JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE jg