SAJEEV v. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., ALAPPUZHA

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.K. Abdul Rehim
Shircy V. Thurasamy
Judgment Date: 2017-12-14
Court Decision / Holding: In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.1,67,000 as compensation. The said amount will carry interest at the same rate as ordered by the Tribunal. The respondent shall pay/deposit the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation of Rs.1,67,000; payment within two months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sajeev, S/o Soman, Kannimel Padinjattathil, Palackal Muri, Thevalakkara, Karunagappally

Respondents

The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Alappuzha

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Pratheesh.P

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri N.S. Mohammed Usman

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arising from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, in OP(MV) No.1414/2006 dated 26-03-2010, awarding Rs.1,16,800 as compensation to the claimant Sajeev for injuries suffered in a September 2005 accident. The appellant contends the Tribunal erred by taking a monthly income of Rs.2000 instead of Rs.5000 and by under-compensating in several heads. The court records the accident occurred due to negligence by the 2nd respondent and that insurance coverage is in place. The appellant was 26 years old at the time, and the medical records reflect a visual disability of 30% as per Ext.C1, though the court notes it should be treated as 20% whole-body disability given it is a visual impairment. Relying on Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236, the court justifies adopting a higher monthly income of Rs.5000 for a coolie. The tribunal’s multiplier of 17 is reconsidered in light of the age and disability. The court reworks the heads of compensation: loss of earnings for 6 months (Rs.18,000), permanent disability (Rs.1,17,600–Rs.2,04,000 range depending on calculation), loss of amenities (Rs.20,000), by-stander’s expenses ( Rs.2,800), pain and suffering (Rs.10,000). The total enhancement amounts to Rs.1,67,000, plus interest. The appeal is allowed in part and the insurer is directed to pay within two months.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in applying an understated income ( Rs.2000 monthly) for computing compensation, misapplied the multiplier and failed to compensate for loss of earning during incapacity, permanent disability, loss of amenities, bystander's expenses and pain-and-suffering. Citing Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236, he argues the appropriate monthly income for a coolie in 2004–2005 was Rs.4500–5000; age 26 warrants a multiplier of 17. The medical evidence shows 30% visual disability, but the court should regard the whole-body disability at 20%; the tribunal’s awards on various heads were inadequate. The claimant seeks enhanced compensation with interest.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer/Respondent contends the Tribunal’s assessment was consistent with evidence and law; no basis is shown to significantly uplift income or alter the heads of compensation; liability remains with the insurer subject to policy terms; the award should reflect proper calculation but not inflate compensation beyond evidence.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Cited to justify increasing the respondent’s monthly income for calculation of compensation, aligning with the Supreme Court’s approach for coolie/low-wage workers.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1939 MACA.No. 2657 of 2010 AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1414/2006 of M.A.C.T.,KOLLAM DATED 26-03-2010 ## APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER SAJEEV, S/O.SOMAN, KANNIMEL PADINJATTATHIL, PALACKAL MURI,, THEVALAKKARA, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV.SRI.PRATHEESH.P ## RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT NO.3: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., ALAPPUZHA. R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-12-2017,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## C.K.ABDUL REHIM & SHIRCY V, JJ. ----------------------------------------------MACA. No. 2657 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 14th day of December, 2017 ## JUDGMENT ## Shircy V,J. Dissatisfied and aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, in O.P (M.V) No.1414/2006 to the appellant/claimant, has approached this court with this appeal. 2. The factum of the accident, negligence on the part of the 2[nd] respondent therein, the insurance coverage of the vehicle involved as well as the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation to the appellant etc. are not in dispute. 3. On 17.9.2005 at about 7.30 p.m. while the appellant was riding his motor cycle through a public road at Kollam , was knocked down by another motor cycle driven by the 2[nd] respondent in the claim petition which came in a MACA.2657/2010 2 rash and negligent manner and on account thereof , he sustained grievous injuries . He was immediately rushed to a nearby hospital where he had undergone treatment as inpatient for 14 days. Though, he claimed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.1,16,800/-.His main grievance is that though he was earning a monthly income of Rs.5000/- from his coolie works, the Tribunal had taken his monthly income as Rs.2000/- and awarded compensation on that basis. It is pertinent to note that the apex court in **Ramachandrappa vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236)** awarded compensation considering the monthly income of a coolie worker as Rs.4500/-in the year 2004. Here, it is to be noted that the accident occurred in the year 2005. The appellant was an able -bodied man at the time of accident . Therefore, in view of the principle laid down in the decision cited above and other facts involved in the case we feel that the MACA.2657/2010 3 income assessed by the Tribunal is quite on the lower side. Hence, we take his monthly income as Rs.5000/-for the purpose of assessing the compensation . 4. Ext.A9 to A13 are his medical records. He sustained visual disability of 30% as assessed by the Medical Board in Ext.C1 certificate. But when it is considered as the whole body disability, it will not be 30% as he had sustained only visual disability and it can reasonably be reckoned as 20%. So also it is to be noted that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is not correct. The appellant was aged only 26 years at the time of the accident. Depending on the age of the injured the multiplier to be adopted is 17. Considering all these facts the several heads of claim are re-worked as follows:- 5. Of-course he could not do any work at least for a period of 6 months . But under the head loss of earnings for a period of 6 months the Tribunal had awarded only Rs.12,000/-. Since the income is taken as Rs.5000/-, he is MACA.2657/2010 4 entitled to get a further amount of Rs.18,000/- under that count (5000 x 6 – 12,000). For the permanent disability, suffered by him the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.86,400/-. Actually he is entitled to get Rs.2,04,000/- (5000 x 12 x 17 x20%). After deducting the amount of Rs.86,400/- already paid he is entitled to get a further amount of Rs.1,17,600/under that head. It is also pertinent to note that even though he sustained severe injuries affecting his vision, under the head loss of amenities in life no amount was granted by the Tribunal. An amount of Rs.20,000/- can be granted under that count. So also he was in the hospital for 14 days. But under the head as by-stander's expenses the Tribunal had awarded only Rs.1400/-. We enhance it as Rs.2800/- which would entitle the appellant for a further amount of Rs.1400/-. So also towards pain and sufferings only a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal. We award a further amount of Rs.10,000/- under that head. So in total the appellant is entitled for a further MACA.2657/2010 5 amount of Rs.1,67,000/-. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is entitled to get a further amount of Rs. 1,67,000/- as compensation . The said amount will carry an interest at the very same rate, as ordered by the Tribunal. The respondent shall pay/ deposit the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE SHIRCY V, JUDGE Pmn/ MACA.2657/2010 6 MACA.2657/2010 7