High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-06-18Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation with deta...

Sajan Thomas v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 714 OF 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
Judgment Date: 2024-06-18
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The tribunal’s award is modified: monthly income fixed at Rs 12,500; additional Rs 2,500 for heavy-vehicle licence; pain and suffering increased by Rs 20,000; loss of amenities increased; permanent disability recalculated to Rs 1,27,500; total compensation revised to Rs 4,10,700. The respondent insurer shall deposit the enhanced amount with interest and costs within two months from receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after the claimant furnishes PAN, Aadhaar, and bank details. If details are not furnished, the insurer may deposit before the tribunal. The entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellant in due course.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation with detailed revisions to several heads; insurer to deposit within two months; PAN/Aadhaar and bank details required.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SAIJAN THOMAS

Respondents

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHALAKUDY

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• EBIN GOPURAN
• JOSEPH GOPURAN

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD
• SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY

Case Synopsis & Summary

This MACA 714 of 2019 is an appeal by the claimant, Sajan Thomas, challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda’s award in O.P(MV) 317 of 2016 arising from injuries suffered on 19 May 2015 while he rode as a pillion on a motorcycle. The tribunal awarded Rs 3,45,200 as total compensation with 8% interest from the date of petition. The appellant contends that the notional monthly income should be higher, supported by his alleged heavy-vehicle driving licence and a certificate of automobile engineering; he claimed potential earnings around Rs 18,000 per month. The insurer disputed the quantum. The High Court, while acknowledging the evidence gaps, reconsidered several heads: notional income, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, and cited Ramachandrappa (SC) and Manusha Sreekumar (Kerala HC) to assess income norms and quantum. The court re-fixes the monthly income at Rs 12,500 (up from Rs 10,000) and, on account of the claimant’s heavy-vehicle licence, adds Rs 2,500. Pain and suffering increases by Rs 20,000; permanent disability and loss of earning power is recalculated to Rs 1,27,500; loss of amenities is increased to Rs 45,000. In sum, the appellate court increases the total to Rs 4,10,700 and allows the appeal, directing the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount with interest and costs within two months, after obtaining PAN/Aadhaar details.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited — AIR 2011 SC 2951 (notional income principle)
Manusha Sreekumar and Others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd — 2022 KHC 7106 (minimum wages/minor adjustment reference)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the tribunal erred in using a notional income of Rs 10,000 per month despite the appellant’s qualifications (heavy-vehicle driving licence and automobile engineering certificate) and alleged potential earnings around Rs 18,000 per month. Citing Manusha Sreekumar (2022 KHC 7106) and Ramachandrappa (AIR 2011 SC 2951), the appellant seeks re-fixation of monthly income at Rs 12,500, with an additional Rs 2,500 for the heavy vehicle licence. He also seeks higher compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, arguing for a higher overall remedy given injuries (femur fracture, splenic and kidney injuries) and six months’ work disruption. The appellant urges recalculation of permanent disability on the enhanced income and an overall uplift in heads of compensation.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer’s defense rests on contesting the higher quantum, including the claimed income. The insurer points to insufficient documentary proof of avocation and monthly income, arguing the tribunal’s calculation was reasonable and consistent with established precedents. The insurer also asserts that any upward revision should be constrained by evidence and statutory guidelines, and urges timely but careful disbursement if the appellate court alters the award.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Manusha Sreekumar and Others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd	2022 KHC 7106	Mentioned Only	Cited by appellant’s counsel as authority on notional income; court notes this but ultimately relies on other precedents and evidence in fixing the income.
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	AIR 2011 SC 2951	Positive	Used by the court to support the notional income framework and calculation of income for compensation determinations.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Sajan Thomas v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN TUESDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1946 ``` ``` MACA NO. 714 OF 2019 ``` ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 26.07.2018 IN O.P(MV) NO.317 OF 2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA ``` ## **`APPELLANT/PETITIONER :-`** ``` SAIJAN THOMAS, AGED 27 YEARS S/O.THOMAS, ELANJIKKAL HOUSE, RESIDING AT CHAIPPINKUZHY DESOM, NEAR THANIKKA MATHAI BUS STOP, KUTTICHIRA VILLAGE, CHAIPPINKUZHY P.O., CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADVS. EBIN GOPURAN JOSEPH GOPURAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT :-`** ``` UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,CHALAKUDY INSURER KL-45/E 3056 MOTORCYCLE. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD ON 18.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 714 OF 2019 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.317 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The respondent herein is the 3[rd] respondent before the tribunal. 2. The case of the appellant/claimant was that on 19.05.2015 at 06.30 am, while he was riding as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-45/E 3056 driven by the 2[nd] respondent through Chaipinkuzhy-Kuttichira public road, a dog suddenly cut across the road and when the 2[nd] respondent turned the vehicle, the appellant was thrown away, whereby he sustained serious injuries. The appellant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.16,91,000/-. 3. The respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, the documentary evidence consists of Exts.A1 to A8 on the side of the ``` MACA NO. 714 OF 2019 ``` ``` 3 ``` appellant/claimant and Ext.B1 was adduced by the respondents. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of 3,45,200/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads; **Notional Income :-** The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is possessing licence to drive heavy vehicle and is a qualified mechanic and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month. But, the tribunal has taken his monthly income as Rs.10,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant was a holder of a certificate of automobile engineering as well as Ext.A8 driving ``` MACA NO. 714 OF 2019 ``` ``` 4 ``` licence to drive heavy-duty vehicles. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of Apex Court in **Manusha Sreekumar and Others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd [2022 KHC** **7106]** , wherein it was held that when minimum wages for a skilled worker like ‘driver’ is shown as Rs.15,600/- per month, the High Court erred in fixing income of the deceased in that case at Rs.10,000/- and the Apex Court fixed the notional income in that case as shown in the minimum wages. In this case, it is seen that, at the time of evidence, the claimant did not mount the box, and it is stated in the order of the tribunal that he was employed at gulf. Moreover, though it was claimed that he was earning Rs.18,000/- per month and was possessing licence to drive heavy vehicle and is a qualified mechanic, no proper evidence, either documentary or oral, was adduced by the appellant to prove his monthly income. However, the tribunal, on consideration of the entire issue, awarded and took an amount of Rs.10,000/- as his monthly income. On a consideration of the issue, it is seen that the certificate of automobile engineering was obtained by the claimant in the year 2007 and the driving licence was obtained ``` MACA NO. 714 OF 2019 ``` ``` 5 ``` in the year 2009. However, the appellant/claimant could not produce any piece of evidence or documents to prove his avocation or his monthly income. However, even going by the judgment in **Ramachandrappa** v. **Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited** [AIR 2011 SC 2951], the tribunal ought to have taken Rs.10,000/- as his monthly income. Considering the fact that the appellant had a heavy duty licence to drive heavy duty vehicles, I feel that an amount of Rs.2,500/- more can be added to his income. Thus, the income is re-fixed at Rs.12,500/-. **- Pain and sufering :** Under this head, the appellant claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, but the tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.40,000/-. The following are the injuries sustained by the appellant as a consequence of the accident : **==> picture [37 x 39] intentionally omitted <==** (I) fracture on his left femur. (ii) suffered femur bone (iii) Grade III splenic injury (iv) Grade II kidney injury Considering the injuries sustained by the appellant, I am ``` MACA NO. 714 OF 2019 ``` ``` 6 ``` of the opinion that an additional amount of Rs.20,000/- more can be granted towards pain and suffering. **Compensation for permanent disability :-** The learned counsel for the appellant is satisfied with the percentage of disability calculated by the tribunal. However, since the monthly income has been enhanced to Rs.12,500/-, the compensation for permanent disability has to be recalculated as Rs.1,27,500/- (12,500x12x17x5/100). The tribunal has awarded Rs.1,02,000/-. Thus, there will be an additional amount of Rs.25,500/- under the said head. **- Loss of amenities :** An amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was claimed by the claimant under the afore head but the tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.25,000/-. It is seen from the award and documents handed over to me that the appellant had undergone seven days’ inpatient treatment and also suffered a splenic injury as well as kidney injuries and could not go for work for six months. Hence, I am of the opinion that the amount of compensation under the said head can be enhanced by awarding a further amount of Rs.20,000/-. Thus, the total compensation payable under the said head would be ``` MACA NO. 714 OF 2019 ``` ``` 7 ``` Rs.45,000/-, entitling the appellant to get an additional amount of Rs.20,000/- . 6. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows: |**Sl.** **No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount** **claimed**|**Amount** **awarded** **by the** **tribunal**|**Modifed** **in appeal**|**Total** **compensation**| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earnings|2,16,000|60,000|(not modifed)|60,000| |2|Transportation expenses|20,000|2,500|(not modifed)|2,500| |3|Extra nourishment|50,000|1,000|(not modifed)|1,000| |4|Damage to clothings|5,000|1,000|(not modifed)|1,000| |5|Attendant expenses|50,000|2,100|(not modifed)|2,100| |6|Medical expenses|1,50,000|1,11,600|(not modifed)|1,11,600| |**7**|**Pain and sufering**|**1,00,000**|**40,000**|**20,000**|**60,000**| |**8**|**Compensation for** **permanent** **disability and loss** **of earning power**|**7,00,000**|**1,02,000**|**25,500**|**1,27,500**| |**9**|**Loss of amenities**|**2,00,000**|**25,000**|**20,000**|**45,000**| |10|Compensation for disfgurement|50,000|Nil|Nil|Nil| |11|Compensation for anticipated medical expenses|1,00,000|Nil|Nil|Nil| |12|Compensation for mental dejection and unhappiness in life|50,000|Nil|Nil|Nil| ||**TOTAL**|**16,91,000**|**3,45,200**|**65,500**|**4,10,700**| ``` MACA NO. 714 OF 2019 ``` ``` 8 ``` Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the appellant/claimant is awarded an additional compensation of **Rs.65,500/-** (Rupees sixty five thousand five hundred only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount together with interest and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The claimant shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, ADHAAR Card and bank details before the respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellant at the earliest in accordance with law. Sd/- ## **SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE** ## **SMA**