Shafeeq v. Riyas C.V. and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
Anil K. Narendran
Judgment Date: 2017-07-13
Court Decision / Holding: The appellant will be entitled for an additional compensation of ₹1,66,650 (3,200+250+10,000+20,000+1,33,200) in this appeal, with interest at 8% p.a. The insurer shall deposit the said amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The appeal is disposed of as above. No order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Appellant's MACA allowed in part; enhanced compensation; insurer to deposit; No costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shafeeq, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, THALAVANAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THOZHUKKARA, KOONAMMOOCHI, THANNEERKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

Respondents

RiyAs C.V., S/O.C.V.KUNHIMON, Cheruvilakayil House, BeeviPadi, Veliyancode P.O., Malappuram District
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Eloor Road, Kalamassery, Ernakulam District-683 104

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Rajit SRI.RANJIT BABU

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt.P.A.REZIYA

Case Synopsis & Summary

Shafeeq, the appellant, sustained severe injuries as a pillion rider when his motorcycle collided with a Tata Indica in 2004. He filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam, seeking ₹5,00,000 as compensation. The Tribunal, after hearing, held that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the insurer’s insured vehicle and awarded ₹2,06,637 in total compensation with 6% interest. The claimant challenged the quantum before the High Court, arguing that the Tribunal erred in fixing his monthly income at ₹2,000 and under-assessing the extent of disability. The Court found the evidence sufficient to affirm a higher income (₹3,000 per month) and a 30% permanent disability, as certified in Ext. A8, and rejected the Tribunal’s 15% disability finding. Applying the multiplier rule from Sarla Verma, and using a multiplier of 18 due to the claimant’s age (20 years at the time of the accident), the Court recalculated the disability compensation at ₹1,94,400. It also re-assessed several heads: extra nourishment (₹5,200), damage to clothing (₹750), and pain and suffering (₹20,000), plus loss of amenities (₹30,000). The total additional compensation amounts to ₹1,66,650, with interest at 8% from the petition date. The insurer is directed to deposit this amount within two months of a certified copy of the judgment. The appeal is allowed in part; there is no cost order.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation doctrine (multiplier method)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the accident in 2004 left him severely disabled; he claims a monthly income of ₹3,000 and argues the Tribunal erroneously fixed ₹2,000; asserts 30% disability; requests re-fixation of income to ₹3,000/month and application of multiplier 18 per Sarla Verma; seeks higher compensation under heads, including disability. The evidence shows Ext.A8 with 30% disability; the appellant’s counsel argues for enhanced compensation, accounting for higher income and medical impairment.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents challenge the quantum fixed by the Tribunal, contending that the original assessment was justified; insurer’s liability remains, and the court should not disproportionately enhance compensation; the defense relies on the evidence before the Tribunal and maintains the earlier basis for calculation. The argument culminates in the High Court re-determining income and disability and applying Sarla Verma to determine the appropriate multiplier.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)	Positive	Court relies on the Supreme Court’s multiplier rule to determine the appropriate multiplier for the claimant’s age (18) in calculating disability compensation.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2017/22ND ASHADHA, 1939** **MACA.No. 1497 of 2007 ( ) --------------------------** **OPMV 14/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM.** **.......** ## **APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:** **-------------------** **SHAFEEQ, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, THALAVANAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THOZHUKKARA, KOONAMMOOCHI, THANNEERKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **------------------------** **1. RIYAS C.V., S/O.C.V.KUNHIMON, CHERUVILAKAYIL HOUSE, BEEVIPADI, VELIYANCODE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, ELOOR ROAD, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 104.** **R2 BY ADV. SMT.P.A.REZIYA** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR & ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.** **-------------------------------------------------M.A.C.A.No.1497 OF 2007 -------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 13[th] DAY OF JULY, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.** This appeal arises out of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam dated 29.11.2006 in O.P.(MV) No.14/2005, a claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant who sustained injuries while travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-10/J-6890 ridden by the claimant in O.P. (MV) No.13/2005. At the place of accident, the motorcycle was hit by a Tata Indica car bearing registration No.KL-10/S-7877 owned and driven by the 1[st] respondent and insured with the 2[nd] respondent. As a result of the accident, he sustained serious injuries. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor car by the 1[st] respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, claiming a total compensation of 5,00,000/-.₹ 2. Before the Tribunal, claim petition was tried along with the M.A.C.A.No.1497/2007 -2- connected matter. On the side of the claimants, Exts.A1 to A15 were marked. Ext.A8 disability certificate was marked through PW1 Doctor. The respondents have produced a copy of the policy, which was marked as Ext.B1. 3. After considering the evidence and materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the 1[st] respondent owner-cum-driver. Since the said vehicle was covered by a valid insurance policy, the 2[nd] respondent insurer was held liable to indemnify the 1[st] respondent owner. Under different heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of ₹2,06,637/- and directed the 2nd respondent insurer to deposit the said amount together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 4. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads, the appellant/claimant is before this Court in this appeal. 5. Heard arguments. 6. The sole issue that arises for consideration is as to M.A.C.A.No.1497/2007 -3- whether the appellant/claimant is entitled for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads. 7. The accident is of the year 2004 and at the time of accident, the appellant/claimant was aged 20 years. He claimed a monthly income of 3,000/- as a coolie. However, no reliable₹ materials were produced before the Tribunal to prove his monthly income. The appellant has not chosen to mount the box. It was in such circumstances that the Tribunal fixed the monthly income notionally at 2,000/- for the purpose of assessing compensation₹ under different heads. Since the accident is of the year 2004 and at the time of accident, the appellant/claimant was an able bodied person aged 20 years, we find no reason to disbelieve his claim that he was earning a monthly income of 3,000/- at the₹ relevant time. In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to re-fix the monthly income of the appellant/claimant notionally as ₹3,000/- for the purpose of assessing compensation under different heads. 8. The injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant as borne out from Ext.A3 wound certificate are as follows: M.A.C.A.No.1497/2007 -4- “Abrasions on forehead bilaterally, upper arm (L) forearm, chest, multiple punctured wound (R) thigh and (R) leg. Fracture shaft of Rt.femur, fracture proximal phalanx fracture on both bones (R) leg. Type I open fracture BB(R) leg, with impending compartmental syndrome, type I open fracture SOF (R), peroneal nerve palsy (R) fracture PPX (R) 2[nd] and 5[th] finger, ligament injury Rt. Knee. Punctured wound on the anterior aspect of thigh. ORIF with IL/IM nail” 9. The medical records would show that the appellant/claimant had undergone inpatient treatment for a period of 18 days. Ext.A8 is the disability certificate, certifying the percentage of permanent disability as 30%. The disability certified in Ext.A8 stands proved by examining the PW1 Doctor. However, the Tribunal scaled down the percentage of permanent disability as 15% for the sole reason that the Doctor who was examined as PW1 has admitted that further treatment is necessary. Ext.A8 disability certificate issued by PW1 contains the particulars as to the assessment of percentage of disability. In such circumstances, considering the nature of injuries sustained, we find no reason to scale down the assessment of disability made in Ext.A8, which stands proved by the oral evidence of the Doctor as PW1. Therefore, we deem it M.A.C.A.No.1497/2007 -5- appropriate to reckon the entire disability of 30% as certified in Ext.A8 for the purpose of assessing compensation under different heads. 10. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads reads thus: |Medical expenses|₹|1,13,137/-| |---|---|---| |Bystander expenses|₹|7,800/-| |Travelling expenses|₹|2,000/-| |Extra nourishment|₹|2,000/-| |Damage to clothes|₹|500/-| |Pain and suffering|₹|10,000/-| |Loss of amenities of life|₹|10,000/-| |including loss of income||| |For disability|₹|61,200/-| 11. Admittedly, the appellant/claimant had undergone inpatient treatment for a period of 52 days. Towards bystander expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of 7,800/- at the rate of₹ ₹150/per day, which represents a just and reasonable compensation under the said head. However, the Tribunal M.A.C.A.No.1497/2007 -6- awarded only a sum of 2,000/- towards extra nourishment.₹ Considering the fact that the accident is of the year 2004, we deem it appropriate to grant 100/- per day towards extra₹ nourishment. Therefore, the compensation under this head will have to be re-fixed as 5,200/- (52x100), resulting an additional₹ compensation of ₹ **3,200** /-. 12. Towards damage to clothing, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of 500/-. Considering the fact that the accident is of the₹ year 2004, we deem it appropriate to re-fix the compensation under this head as 750/-, resulting an additional compensation₹ of ₹ **250** /-. 13. Towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of 10,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained₹ and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from the medical records, we deem it appropriate to re-fix the compensation under this head as ₹20,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of ₹ **10,000** /-. 14. Towards loss of amenities, the Tribunal awarded a sum of 10,000/-. In Ext.A8 disability certificate, PW1 Doctor has₹ M.A.C.A.No.1497/2007 -7- certified a permanent disability of 30% arising out of the injuries sustained in the accident. Considering the nature of disability, as certified in Ext.A8, we deem it appropriate to re-fix the compensation under this head as ₹30,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of ₹ **20,000** /-. 15. The Tribunal assessed a sum of 61,200/- as disability₹ compensation taking 2000/- as the multiplicand, applying the₹ multiplier of '17' and percentage of disability as 15%. Since the appellant was aged 20 years at the time of accident, the proper multiplier applicable to the age group of the appellant, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)]** is '18'. Since we have already re-fixed the monthly income of the appellant/claimant at 3,000/- and the percentage of disability as₹ 30%, the compensation payable under the head has to be reworked as ₹1,94,400 (3000x12x18x30/100), resulting an additional compensation of ₹ **1,33,200** /-. 16. In the result, the appellant will be entitled for an additional compensation of ₹ **1,66,650** /-(3,200+250+10,000+ M.A.C.A.No.1497/2007 -8- 20,000+1,33,200) in this appeal, which will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Since the insurance coverage of the vehicle is not in dispute, the 2[nd] respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The appeal is disposed of as above. No order as to costs. Sd/- **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE** Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** dsn True copy P.S. to Judge