Shahul Hameed v. Mohammed Ali, Saheer P, and Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.26 OF 2020(C)** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)NO.50/2012 DATED 03-07-2019 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,THRISSUR** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER :** **SHAHUL HAMEED AGED 39 YEARS S/O. ABOOBACKER, PULAKKAL HOUSE, PALLOOR P.O, DESAMANGALAM (VIA), THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 MOHAMMED ALI POOLAKKAL HOUSE, RAMAPURAM P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 350 2 SAHEER P, S/O. MUHAMMED P, POOLAKKAL HOUSE, RAMAPURAM P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 350 3 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, POOTHOLE P.O, THRISSUR -680 004 R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) R3 BY ADV. SMT.K.S.SANTHI R3 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA No.26 of 2020(C) 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant is the claimant in O.P(MV)No.50 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident, which occurred on 08.06.2008, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-8/AJ-8264. At the place of accident, the motorcycle was hit by another motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-18/J-8444 owned by the 1[st] respondent, ridden by the 2[nd] respondent and insured with the 3[rd] respondent. In the accident, he sustained injuries. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by the 2[nd] respondent, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.8,53,000/- under various heads. 2. Before the Tribunal, the 1[st] respondent owner and the 2[nd] respondent rider remained absent and they were set ex parte. 3. The 3[rd] respondent insurer filed written statement admitting insurance coverage of the motorcycle; however, MACA No.26 of 2020(C) 3 denying the negligence alleged against its rider. The insurer disputed the age, occupation, monthly income, etc. stated in the claim petition. They also disputed the liability to indemnify the insured, by contending that the 2[nd] respondent rider was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The insurer contended further that the compensation claimed is highly excessive. 4. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant. On the side of the respondents, the insurance policy of the offending vehicle was marked as Ext.B1. 5. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. Since insurance coverage of the said vehicle was not in dispute, the insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,55,010/-, together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition, i.e. from 06.01.2012, till realisation, with proportionate cost, and the insurer was directed to satisfy MACA No.26 of 2020(C) 4 the award. 6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant is before this Court in this appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ claimant and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent insurer. Since insurance coverage of the offending vehicle is admitted by the insurer, service of notice on respondents 1 and 2 is dispensed with. 8. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads. 9. In **State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur [(2003) 7 SCC 484]** the Apex Court held that the Tribunal under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense 'damages' which in turn appears to it to be 'just and reasonable'. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it MACA No.26 of 2020(C) 5 has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be 'just' and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. 10. In **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the concept of 'just compensation' and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability. 11. In the instant case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads reads thus; MACA No.26 of 2020(C) 6 ||6||| |---|---|---|---| |Sl.<br>No.|Head of claim|Amount<br>claimed (in<br>Rupees)|Amount<br>awarded (in<br>Rupees)| |1|Loss of earning (Total)|75,000/-|45,000/-| |2|Medial expenses|22,000/-|25,510/-| |3|Bystander expenses|--|2,400/-| |4|Transportation expenses|5,000/-|2,000/-| |5|Extra nourishment|5,000/-|3,000/-| |6|Damage to clothing etc.|1,000/-|1,000/-| |7|Pain and suffering|50,000/-|45,000/-| |8|Compensation for continuing<br>or permanent disability|6,00,000/-|1,83,600/-| |9|Compensation for the loss of<br>earning power|--|--| |10|Loss<br>of<br>amenities<br>and<br>enjoyment of life|25,000/-|40,000/-| |11|Compensation<br>for<br>disfigurement|20,000/-|–-| |12|Personal assistance|10,000/-|7,500/-| |13|Compensation for loss of<br>expectancy of life|20,000/-|--| |14|Compensation for loss of<br>marriage of life|20,000/-|--| ||Total Claim limits to|**8,53,000/-**|**3,55,010/-**| 12. The accident occurred on 08.06.2008. At the time of accident, the appellant was aged 32 years. The appellant claimed a monthly income of Rs.9,000/- as driver. Though the driving licence of the appellant was produced as Ext.A9, no materials were produced before the Tribunal to prove his monthly income. The appellant has also not chosen to mount the box. In the absence of any reliable materials, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income notionally MACA No.26 of 2020(C) 7 as Rs.4,500/-, for the purpose of assessing compensation under various heads. 13. In **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236]** the Apex Court reckoned the monthly income of a coolie (manual labourer), who met with a road accident in the year 2004, at the age of 35 years, notionally as Rs.4,500/-. The Apex Court held that, the claimant who was working as a coolie cannot be expected to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in the facts of the said case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant. The Apex Court made it clear that, in all cases and in all circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant, in the absence of supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guess work, which MACA No.26 of 2020(C) 8 may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time. 14. In **Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2014) 2 SCC 735]** , taking note of the earlier decision in **Ramachandrappa's case (supra)** , the Apex Court reckoned the monthly income of a vegetable vendor, who met with a road accident in the year 2008, at the age of 24 years, notionally as Rs.6,500/-. In the said decision, the Apex Court held that, a labourer in an unorganised sector doing his own business cannot be expected to produce documents to prove his monthly income. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal and the High Court to ask for evidence to prove his monthly income. Going by the state of economy prevailing at that time and the rising prices in agricultural products, the Apex Court accepted his case that a vegetable vendor is reasonably capable of earning 6,500/- per month. 15. In the absence of any reliable evidence, considering the economic conditions prevailing at the time of accident, i.e., during the year 2008, and taking note of the fixation of notional monthly income by the Apex Court MACA No.26 of 2020(C) 9 in the decisions referred to supra, this Court deem it appropriate to re-fix the monthly income of the appellant notionally as Rs.6,500/-, for the purpose of assessing compensation under various heads. 16. The document marked as Ext.A5 is the wound certificate and Ext.A6 is the discharge summary. As per the medical records, in the accident, the appellant sustained fracture frontal and temporal bones, fracture frontal sinus wall, brain edema, haematoma right temporal area, fracture zygomatic arch, soft tissue swelling, etc. He had undergone inpatient treatment for a period of 12 days. Ext.A8 series are the medical bills for a sum of Rs.25,506.78. 17. In Ext.A11 disability certificate issued by an individual doctor, the permanent disability of the appellant on account of the injuries sustained in the accident is assessed as 23.5%. The said disability certificate was marked subject to objection. The appellant has not taken steps to prove Ext.A11 by examining the doctor concerned. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and also the physical condition and cognitive MACA No.26 of 2020(C) 10 dysfunction on account of those injuries, the Tribunal took the percentage of permanent disability of the appellant as 20% for the purpose of awarding compensation under various heads. 18. Towards loss of earning, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/-, at the rate of Rs.4,500/- for a period of 10 months. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the period of 10 months fixed by the Tribunal for granting loss of earning is just and reasonable. Since the monthly income of the appellant is re-fixed notionally as Rs.6,500/-, the compensation under the head loss of earning is re-fixed as Rs.65,000/- (6,500 x 10), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.20,000/-** (65,000 – 45,000). 19. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for 12 days. The accident is of the year 2008. Towards transportation to hospital, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out MACA No.26 of 2020(C) 11 from medical records, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head represents just and reasonable compensation, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. 20. Towards bystander expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,400/-. Towards extra nourishment, the Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs.3,000/-. A sum of Rs.7,500/- has been awarded by the Tribunal towards personal assistance. The accident is of the year 2008 and the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for 12 days. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under these heads represents just and reasonable compensation, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. 21. Towards damage to clothing and articles, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/-. Considering the fact that the accident is of the year 2008, the compensation under this head represents just and reasonable compensation, which requires no enhancement in this MACA No.26 of 2020(C) 12 appeal. 22. Towards medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,510/-, covered by Ext.A8 series of medical bills. In the absence of any further materials, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head represents just and reasonable compensation, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. 23. As compensation towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head cannot be said to be on the lower side. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for any enhancement under this head. 24. In **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121]** , the Apex Court, after referring to its earlier decisions in **Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176]** , **U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362]** and **New India** MACA No.26 of 2020(C) 13 **Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie [(2005) 10 SCC 720]** held that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table in paragraph 40 of the said decision [prepared by applying **Susamma Thomas** , **Trilok Chandra** and **Charlie** ], which starts with an operative multiplier of **18** [for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years], reduced by one unit for every five years, i.e., multiplier of **17** for 26 to 30 years, multiplier of **16** for 31 to 35 years, multiplier of **15** for 36 to 40 years, multiplier of **14** for 41 to 45 years, and multiplier of **13** for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, i.e., multiplier of **11** for 51 to 55 years, multiplier of **9** for 56 to 60 years, multiplier of **7** for 61 to 65 years and multiplier of **5** for 66 to 70 years. 25. In **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, as far as the multiplier is concerned, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in paragraph 19 of **Sarla Verma** , read with paragraph 42 of the said judgment. 26. In the instant case, as on the date of accident, MACA No.26 of 2020(C) 14 the appellant was aged 32 years. In the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in **Sarla Verma's case** and **Pranay Sethi's case** referred to supra, the multiplier of 17 applied by the Tribunal is not correct and the proper multiplier to be applied is **16** . 27. Towards compensation for permanent disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,83,600/- (4,500 x 12 x 17 x 20/100). Since the monthly income of the appellant is re-fixed notionally as Rs.6,500/-, applying the multiplier of 16 applicable to the age group of the appellant and the percentage of permanent disability as 20%, the compensation under the head permanent disability is refixed as Rs.2,49,600/- (6,500 x 12 x 16 x 20/100), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.66,000/-** (2,49,600 – 1,83,600). 28. Towards loss of amenities, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and 20% permanent disability on account of those injuries, as fixed by the Tribunal, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head cannot be said to be on the lower side, which requires no enhancement in MACA No.26 of 2020(C) 15 this appeal. 29. In the result, the appellant/claimant will be entitled for payment of an additional compensation of **Rs.86,000/-** (Rupees Eighty six thousand only) [20,000 + 66,000] in this appeal, which will carry interest at the rate of **8%** per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The 3[rd] respondent insurer shall satisfy the additional compensation granted in this appeal, together with interest, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after deducting the liability, if any, of the appellant/claimant towards Balance Court Fee and Legal Benefit Fund. The disbursement of additional compensation to the appellant/claimant shall be made taking note of the law on the point and in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06.09.2019 and clarified further in Official Memorandum No.D1-62475/2016 dated 07.11.2019. The appellant shall provide his Bank account details (attested copy of the relevant page of the Bank Passbook having details of the Bank Account Number and IFSC Code of the branch) before the Tribunal, with copy to the learned MACA No.26 of 2020(C) 16 Standing Counsel for the insurer, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. This appeal is disposed of as above. No order as to costs. Sd/- **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** AV/9/3