Saritha v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon
K. Harilal
Judgment Date: 2015-09-07
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court disposed of the appeal by partially allowing it. It reworked the compensation, increasing the claimant’s annual income for calculation to Rs 4,000 per month, extending the loss of earning to six months, adding sums for pain, loss of amenities, and recalculating permanent disability, resulting in a total of Rs 61,440. The insurer was directed to deposit this amount before the Tribunal within one month, plus interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition (28/06/2010) until deposit.
Final Disposition: This appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Saritha

Respondents

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri K. Janardhanan
• Sri K.J. Manu Raj

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri John Joseph Vettikkad

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a motor accident claims appeal (MacA No. 719 of 2013) arising from a road accident on 28 March 2010 in which Saritha, a pillion rider travelling on a motorcycle driven by her husband, sustained serious injuries when a car hit from the opposite side. The Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, held the Insurance Company liable and awarded a total compensation of Rs 95,862 with 9% interest. The 1st and 2nd respondents (owner and driver of the car) were ex parte; the Insurance Company defended the petition, but no evidence was tendered by either side beyond Exts A1–A10 and C1 (disability certificate). The appellant challenged the award on grounds of inadequate compensation, urging re-assessment of heads on the basis of higher income and greater damages, including enhanced loss of earning and permanent disability. The High Court relied on the Apex Court’s decision in Sayed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014) 2 SCC 735 to adjust the calculation. It found the claimant’s monthly income should be Rs 4,000 (instead of Rs 3,000) and that six months’ loss of earning, multiple head losses, and disability should be recalculated accordingly. Consequently, the Court reworked the total to Rs 61,440, directing the Insurance Company to deposit this amount with 9% interest from 28/06/2010 until deposit, disposing of the appeal accordingly.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Appellant contends that the Tribunal’s award is inadequate and calls for re-calculation of compensation in light of higher income and greater damages, relying on the 2014 Apex Court decision that allows adjustments in income for compensation under MACT claims; seeks higher sums for loss of earning, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and permanent disability; argues that the policy liability should reflect fair compensation in view of the medical evidence and the extent of injuries.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondent Insurance Company contends there was no contest by the car’s owner and driver; no evidence was adduced by either side beyond Exts A1–A10; seeks to uphold the tribunal’s findings and avoid enhancement; disputes the basis for increasing income and other heads, and maintains that liability rests on the insurer as per policy terms.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sayed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd.	2014 (2) SCC 735	Positive	The High Court relied on this Apex Court ruling to justify increasing the claimant’s monthly income for calculation of compensation and to modify the quantum of award in line with recognized precedent.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL** **MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/16TH BHADRA, 1937** **MACA.No. 719 of 2013 --------------------** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 966/2010 of M.A.C.T.,ERNAKULAM DATED 09-08-2012** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER :** **-----------------------** **SARITHA, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O. SAJAN, 'SREENILAYAM', (KOTHATTU HOUSE), SOUTH PARAVOOR P.O., THRIPOONITHURA, ERNAKULAM-682 320.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.JANARDHANAN SRI.K.J.MANU RAJ** **RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT : ---------------------------** **UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-31.** **BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKKAD** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & K. HARILAL, JJ.** **--------------------------------------------------------M.A.C.A. No.719 of 2013** **---------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 7[th] day of September, 2015** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Ramachandra Menon, J.** The appellant was the petitioner before the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, who sought compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident occurred on 28/3/2010. 2. The appellant was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-39A 1687 ridden by her husband on 28/3/2010. While so, she was knocked down by a car bearing Registration No.KL-7H 4248, which came to the opposite side causing serious injuries which led to the claim petition. 3. The 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents, who are the owner **M.A.C.A. No.719 of 2013** -: 2 :- and driver of the car respectively, did not choose to contest the matter and they were set ex parte. The matter was contested by the Insurance Company alone. No evidence, oral or documentary, was adduced by either side. The evidence only consists of the documents produced by the appellant marked as Exts.A1 to A10 and Ext.C1 (which is the disability certificate issued by the competent Medical Board). After evaluating the evidence, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident occurred only due to the negligent driving of the car by the 2[nd] respondent and the liability was fixed accordingly. After considering the extent and nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, the Tribunal awarded amounts under various heads granting a total compensation of `95,862/- which was directed to be satisfied with interest at the rate of 9% per annum which is sought to be enhanced by filing the present appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as ## **M.A.C.A. No.719 of 2013** -: 3 :- well as the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. 5. The injuries sustained by the appellant as evident from Ext.A4 wound certificate, as discussed by the Tribunal in paragraphs-8 and 9 of the impugned award are under the following terms: - “8. Issue No.2: According to petitioner he has sustained following injuries:- 1. Punctured wound over right leg and left leg. 2. Lacerated wound over left leg, forehead; 3. Fracture both bone left leg. 9. Ext.A4 is the copy of wound certificate issued from Specialist Hospital which would show that petitioner was taken to that hospital immediately after the accident with above said injuries and treated as outpatient. A6 is the discharge certificate issued ## **M.A.C.A. No.719 of 2013** -: 4 :- from Medical College Hospital showing that petitioner was admitted on 28/3/10 and discharged on 7/4/10. There was a fracture type II open of both bone of left leg. A8 is discharge card issued from Medical College showing the details of treatment in continuation with the Specialist Hospital. Therefore, injuries sustained by the petitioner and treatment given to him are proved by above said documents.” ## 6. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under ## various heads are as given below: |**_Head_**|**_Amount claimed_**|**_Amount awarded_**|**_Details_**| |---|---|---|---| |Loss of earning|30000|9000|3000x3 months| |Transportation expenses|5000|1000|| |Damage to clothing|2000|500|| |Extra nourishment|3000|1000|| |Expense for treatment|20000|6282|(entire bill amount claimed)| |Bystanders expenses`|40000|2000|(200 x 10 days)| |Shock, pain and suffering|10000|10000|| ## **M.A.C.A. No.719 of 2013** -: 5 :- |**_Head_**|**_Amount claimed_**|**_Amount awarded_**|**_Amount awarded_**|**_Details_**| |---|---|---|---|---| |Compensation for permanent disability|400000||46080|3000 x 12 x16 x 8%| |Total|||95862|| |||||| 7. It is stated that the appellant was working as a sales girl in an establishment and her proclaimed income as shown as `6,000/-. But the fact remains that no evidence, oral or documentary, was adduced before the Tribunal to establish the same. However, considering the facts and circumstances, more particularly in the light of the ruling rendered by the Apex Court in Sayed Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd., [2014 (2) SCC 735] and also considering the fact that the accident was occurred in the year 2010, we find that the monthly income has to be increased by 1/3[rd] so as to make it `4,000/- in the place of `3,000/- to work out the compensation under different heads. To re-work out the compensation as above, it is seen that the Tribunal worked out only three months' salary for the **M.A.C.A. No.719 of 2013** -: 6 :- loss of earning and considering the extent of injuries sustained by her and also shortening of the legs, it goes without saying that the appellant had to undergo much an ordeal, and as she is not in a position to physiotherapy, at least six months' salary has to be reckoned. The loss of earning has to be worked out as: 4,000x6=24,000/-. After deducting the amount of `9,000/- already granted by the Tribunal, it comes to `15,000/-. We find it also appropriate to grant a further sum of `5,000/- towards pain and suffering and over and above `20,000/- already awarded under the same head. In respect of loss of amenities, the Tribunal granted only an amount of `10,000/- which necessarily has to be increased to `25,000/- and the balance amount of `15,000/- to be compensated. For permanent disability comes to `4,000 x 12 x 16 x 8/100=`61,440/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head is `46,080/-. The balance amount comes to `15,360/-. The total compensation **M.A.C.A. No.719 of 2013** -: 7 :- payable under these heads comes to `61,440/-. The said amount shall be satisfied with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e., 28/6/2010 till the date of deposit. Since the policy is admitted, this Court finds that the amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- - **(P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE)** Sd/- ## **(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)** ## **Nan/** //true copy// P.S. to Judge **M.A.C.A. No.719 of 2013** -: 8 :-