High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-10-28MACA allowed; enhanced compensation recalculate...

Salim M.K. v. Pareed and The New India Assurance Company Limited

Case / Petition Number:MACA 1575/2015

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. Jayachandran
Judgment Date: 2022-10-28
Court Decision / Holding: MACA allowed; compensation re-worked as per the tabular statement provided in the judgment. The total enhanced amount is Rs. 3,61,810, with an enhanced component of Rs. 1,05,350. The insurer is directed to pay interest on the enhanced amounts at 5% from the date of petition, and to transfer the enhanced amount through NEFT/RTGS after providing bank details within one month of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. If bank details are not furnished within the specified time, no interest shall accrue on the enhanced amount beyond the period stipulated. The Tribunal’s earlier award continues to apply for amounts already paid, with set-off where applicable.
Final Disposition: MACA allowed; enhanced compensation recalculated with a higher monthly income and updated heads of compensation; interest on enhanced amount at 5% from petition date; NEFT/RTGS transfer with bank details furnished within one month.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Salim M.K.

Respondents

Pareed
The New India Assurance Company Limited

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.M.P.Mohammed Aslam
• Sri.Abu Mathew
• Sri.Aju Mathew

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri.John Joseph Vettikkad

Case Synopsis & Summary

The appeal (MACA 1575/2015) arises from an accident on 7.9.2009, where Salim M.K., a driver who also worked as a gunny bag merchant, sought enhanced compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, in OP(MV) 1409/2009. The Kerala High Court, in a single-judge decision by Justice C. Jayachandran, delivered on 28 October 2022, allowed the appeal in part and re-computed the compensation. The appellant contends that the Tribunal’s quantum was inadequate because the monthly income was under-assessed at Rs.4,500; he argues the income should be Rs.7,000 (citing Ramachandrappa) given his dual employment. The court accepts the higher income after testing it against Ramachandrappa, and addresses several heads of compensation: it refuses further enhancement for pain and suffering but increases loss of amenities from Rs.20,000 to Rs.25,000, and re-evaluates loss of earnings in light of a 15% permanent disability and a 29-day hospitalization. Additional sums for extra nourishment and attendant are adjusted, while the disfigurement head is deleted. Relying on the multiplier principle in Sarla Verma, the court applies a higher multiplier (16) and re-calculates the totals in a tabular form, yielding a higher overall award of Rs.3,61,810 with an enhanced component of Rs.1,05,350. The insurer is directed to pay interest on enhanced amounts at 5% from the date of petition, with NEFT/RTGS transfer and bank details to be provided within prescribed time.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Doctrine of multiplier for compensation as laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation
Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. – use of it to determine income for calculation

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal fixed monthly income at Rs.4,500, which is too low for a driver who also conducted business as a gunny bag merchant. Relying on Ramachandrappa, the income should be Rs.7,000 per month. The claimant urged enhancement in heads such as loss of amenities (from Rs.20,000 to Rs.25,000), extended loss of earnings in view of the 15% disability and 29 days of hospitalization, and daily allowances for nourishment and attendant at Rs.250. The disfigurement head of Rs.7,500 was challenged as impermissible, with a view to reallocation. The appellant pressed for applying the Sarla Verma multiplier (16) rather than 15. It was argued that while some heads had already been adequately compensated by the Tribunal, the overall compensation required recalibration to reflect the injury’s impact on earning capacity. The insurer contended that the Tribunal’s award already covered pain and suffering, and urged against further amplification of other items; the court, however, proceeded to reconsider and adjust the quantum accordingly.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurance respondent argued that the Tribunal had already adequately compensated pain and suffering and that no further enhancements were warranted. It contended that loss of earnings and other heads had been dealt with correctly by the Tribunal and that the Neft/RTGS payment mechanism and interest terms should follow the award. The respondent further urged that the disfigurement head was not a permissible item under law and should be deleted, and that any adjustments must align with the Tribunal’s findings and the statutory framework.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.	[(2011) 13 SCC 236]	Positive	Used as precedent to justify increasing the claimant’s monthly income to Rs.7,000 per month, thereby altering compensation calculations.
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	[2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)]	Positive	Cited for the multiplier principle, guiding the court to apply a higher multiplier (16) reflecting age and standard formula for computing compensation.

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 Salim M.K. v. Pareed and The New India Assurance Company Limited 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 MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1944 ``` ## _`MACA NO. 1575 OF 2015`_ ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2014 IN OPMV 1409/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PERUMBAVOOR ``` ## _`APPELLANT/PETITIONER:`_ ``` SALIM M.K., S/O.KUNJUVAVARU, MANNUPARAMBAN HOUSE, VENGOLA VILLAGE,PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.MOHAMMED ASLAM SRI.ABU MATHEW SRI.AJU MATHEW ``` ## _`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`_ ``` 1PAREED, SON OF KADER 12/254-B, VETTOLIL HOUSE, KOTTAPPURAM, ALANGAD,NORTH PARAVUR, PIN - 683 511. 2THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED KODAVATH SHOPPING COMPLEX, SUB JAIL ROAD, ALUVA. BY ADV SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` MACA 1575/2015 2 ## **`C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.`** ``` ------------------------------------ MACA No.1575 of 2015 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 28[th] day of October, 2022 ``` ## **`J U D G M E N T`** ``` 1.In this appeal, the claimant, who met with an accident on 7.9.2009, when he was 35 years old, is ``` ``` the appellant. He impugns the award in O.P(M.V) ``` ``` No.1409/2009 of the Motor Accidents Claims ``` ``` Tribunal, Perumbavoor, essentially on the ground of insufficiency of the quantum of compensation ``` ``` granted by the Tribunal. ``` ``` 2.Heard Sri.Aju Mathew, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.John Joseph Vettikkad for the second respondent/insurance company. Perused the records. ``` MACA 1575/2015 3 ``` 3.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted ``` ``` that the monthly income reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.4,500/- is on the lower side. The ``` ``` claimant/appellant was a driver and was also ``` ``` engaged as a gunny bag merchant at the time of accident. Even if the index indicated in ``` ## **`Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram`** ## **`Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC`** ``` 236] is taken, his monthly income is liable to be reckoned at Rs.7,000/-. This Court finds merit in ``` ``` the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and accordingly, fix the monthly income at Rs.7,000/-. ``` ``` 4.The next point canvassed by the appellant’s counsel is with respect to compensation under the ``` ``` head ‘pain and suffering’. It was pointed out that ``` MACA 1575/2015 4 ``` leg and left femur, resulting in shortening of left leg. Therefore, the compensation under the head ‘pain and suffering’ has to be enhanced, is the submission. This was opposed by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company pointing out that all what was claimed under the head ‘pain and suffering’ has been granted by the Tribunal and there is no room for any further enhancement. On this count, this Court endorses the submission made by the learned counsel for the insurance company. ``` ``` 5.The third ground is with respect to loss of amenities, which the Tribunal reckoned at Rs.20,000/-. Taking into account the fractures sustained by the claimant, resulting in shortening of his left leg, this Court is of the opinion that loss of amenities can be enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. ``` MACA 1575/2015 5 ``` 6.The Tribunal reckoned loss of earnings for a period of three months, which according to the learned counsel for the appellant is on the lower side. This Court notices that as per Ext.X1 disability certificate, the claimant/appellant had suffered a permanent disability at 15%. He was ``` ``` hospitalized for 29 days. The fracture on his left ``` ``` leg resulted in its shortening. In the ``` ``` circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that ``` ``` loss of earnings can be reckoned for a period of ``` ``` 7.Expenses for extra nourishment and for attendant are liable to be reckoned @ 250/- per ``` ``` day.Consideringthefactthatthe appellant/claimant was hospitalised for a period of 29 days, compensation under the heads extra ``` MACA 1575/2015 6 ``` nourishment and expenses for attendant has to be enhanced accordingly. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that a ``` ``` sum of Rs.7,500/- under the head dis-figuration is not contemplated by law. The compensation under ``` ``` that head get coalesced with the loss of ``` ``` submission and therefore, choose to obliterate the ``` ``` compensation of Rs.7,500/- granted under that head. ``` ``` 8.Finally, learned counsel for the appellant ``` ``` pointed out that the correct multiplier applicable to the age 35 is 16, against which the Tribunal has reckoned only 15. This contention is also liable to be accepted going by the dictum laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)]. ``` MACA 1575/2015 7 ``` 9.In the result, this MACA is allowed and the ``` ``` compensationamountpayabletothe appellant/claimant is re-worked as indicated in ``` ``` the tabular statement shown hereinbelow: ``` |`Sl.` `No.`|`Head of claim`|`Amount` `awarded` `by` `the` `Tribunal(Rs)`|`Total` `amount` `after` `enhancement in` `appeal (Rs.)`| |---|---|---|---| |`1`|`Loss of earnings`|`13500`|`35000` `(7000x5)`| |`2`|`Transportation` `to` `Hospital`|`3000`|`3000`| |`3`|`Extra nourishment`|`3750`|`7250` `(29x250)`| |`4`|`Damage to clothes` `etc`|`700`|`700`| |`5`|`Attendant charges`|`4500`|`7250` `(29x250)`| |`6`|`Medical expenses`|`60010`|`60010`| |`7`|`Pain and sufering`|`22000`|`22000`| |`8`|`Loss of amenities`|`20000`|`25000`| |`9`|`Disability`|`121500`|`* 201600`| |`10`|`Disfguration`|`7500`|`nil`| ||`Total`|`256460`|`361810`| ||`Amount enhanced =` **`Rs.1,05,350/-`**`(361810 -` `256460)`||| ``` *(7000x12x16x15%) ``` MACA 1575/2015 8 ``` 10.The Insurance Company shall pay interest for the amounts awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award; and for the enhanced amounts at the rate of 5% from the date ``` ``` of petition. 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 Insurance Company fails to deposit the amount as ``` MACA 1575/2015 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` directed, interest on enhanced amount shall also ``` ``` run at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the ``` ``` date of petition. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` C.JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE ``` ``` jg ```