High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-05-21Appeal allowed; award enhanced and modified; in...

Sheeba v. Rajeev Sreedharan and Sanjeev Sreedharan and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA No. 4391 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Shoba Annamma Eapen
Judgment Date: 2024-05-21
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed. The award dated 26.07.2019 in OP(MV) 1115/2016 is modified by: (a) increasing notional income to Rs 10,500 per month; (b) enhancing loss of earnings to Rs 21,000; (c) computing disability at 3% with enhanced disability compensation to Rs 56,700 (subject to deduction of Rs 43,200 already awarded, resulting in additional Rs 13,500); (d) awarding Rs 20,000 for pain and suffering; (e) Rs 10,000 for loss of amenities; (f) Rs 2,990 for medical expenses; (g) Rs 500 for clothing; (h) Rs 0 for attendant expenses. The total compensation becomes Rs 1,13,190, with interest at 8% per annum from 05.10.2016 until realisation. The 3rd respondent insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with costs within sixty days of receiving a certified copy of this judgment, after the claimant provides PAN/Aadhaar and bank details.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; award enhanced and modified; insurer directed to deposit enhanced amount with interest and costs within sixty days; PAN/Aadhaar details to be furnished; disbursement to appellant in due course.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sheeba

Respondents

Rajeev S/o. Sreedharan
Sanjeev S/o. Sreedharan
The Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. V. Binoy Ram

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. SMT. P.K. Santhamma

Case Synopsis & Summary

Sheeba, the appellant, challenges the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda's common award dated 26.07.2019 in OP(MV) 1115/2016, seeking higher compensation for injuries suffered as a pillion rider on an Enfield Bullet. The vehicle KL-08-F-3806 collided with the motorcycle she rode as a passenger. The Tribunal held the insured liable for compensation and found no contributory negligence; it awarded Rs 94,690 with 8% interest from 05.10.2016. The appellant contends that the quantum is inadequate under several heads and seeks enhancement by applying the Ramachandrappa principle to fix a higher notional income of Rs 10,500 per month for a coolie, and to revise loss of earnings accordingly from Rs 16,000 to Rs 21,000. She also argues disability compensation should reflect a whole-body disability of 7.82% instead of 3%, and that damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities are understated. The insurer opposes enhancement, arguing the Tribunal correctly assessed earnings, disability, and other heads, and that there was no contributory negligence. The High Court accepts the higher notional income and recalculates disability and other heads, increasing the total to Rs 1,13,190 and awarding an additional Rs 18,500 in appeal, with 8% interest and costs. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within sixty days, with PAN and Aadhaar details furnished by the claimant.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant urged enhancement of compensation by applying the Ramachandrappa principle to fix a higher notional income of Rs 10,500 per month for a coolie, contending the Tribunal erred in using Rs 8,000. She argued for higher loss of earnings (from Rs 16,000 to Rs 21,000) and for increased disability compensation in light of a whole-body disability certificate showing 7.82%, though the Tribunal adopted 3%. They pressed for higher awards under pain and suffering (claimed Rs 1,00,000), and loss of amenities (Rs 50,000), and for correction of other heads (medical, clothing, transport, etc.) based on a re-calculation tied to the enhanced notional income, yielding a total enhanced compensation of Rs 1,13,190 with interest and costs.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contested the enhancement, contending the Tribunal correctly assessed income at Rs 8,000, disability at 3%, and other heads. They argued there was no basis to depart from the Tribunal’s evaluation, and that the appellant had not established contributory negligence by the rider of the other vehicle. They urged against adopting the Ramachandrappa framework here and maintained the compensation already awarded was reasonable and supported by the evidence on record.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	The court relied on Ramachandrappa to fix the notional income at Rs 10,500 per month for a coolie, which supported enhanced 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 Sheeba v. Rajeev Sreedharan and Sanjeev Sreedharan and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 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 MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN** **TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946** **MACA NO. 4391 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 26.07.2019 IN OPMV NO.1115 OF 2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , IRINJALAKUDA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** ## **SHEEBA** **AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. THILAKAN, THOTTAPPILLY HOUSE, VELLILAMKUNNU DESOM, MURIYAD VILLAGE AND P. O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 683 BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 RAJEEV S/O. SREEDHARAN, NAVANEETHAM HOUSE, VELLANGALLUR DESOM AND P. O., VADAKKUMKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 662 2 SANJEEV S/O. SREEDHARAN, NAVANEETHAM HOUSE, VELLANGALLUR DESOM AND P. O., VADAKKUMKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 662 3 THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PARK HOUSE, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA** ## **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR** **ADMISSION ON 21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** M.A.C.A.No.4391 of 2019 : 2 : ## **SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J. ========================= M.A.C.A.No. 4391 of 2019 ========================== Dated this the 21[st] day of May, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** This appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the petitioner in OP(MV) No.1115/2016 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The appellant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the common award dated 26.07.2019. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal. 2. According to the appellant, she was a pillion rider on a motorcycle. The offending vehicle bearing registration number KL-08-F-3806 Enfield Bullet motorcycle ridden by the 2[nd] respondent hit against the motorcycle in which the appellant was travelling and she sustained injuries in the accident. The 1[st] respondent is the insured /owner and the 3[rd] respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The appellant claimed an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only) as compensation under various heads. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a joint written M.A.C.A.No.4391 of 2019 : 3 : statement denying the allegations raised in the petition. Respondent No.3 also filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy but contended that the amounts claimed by the claimants under various heads were excessive and further contended contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. No oral evidence was adduced before the Tribunal. Exts.A1 to A21 were marked from the side of the appellant, and Ext.B1 is marked from the side of the 3[rd] respondent. 4. The Tribunal, on consideration of the entire issue, found that no contributory negligence can be attributed and since the vehicle had a valid insurance policy, directed the insurance company to pay an amount of Rs.94,690/- (Rupees ninety-four thousand six hundred and ninety only), with interest at the rate of 8% from 05.10.2016 till realisation. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has approached this Court with the above appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant claimed enhancement on the following heads: M.A.C.A.No.4391 of 2019 : 4 : ## 7. Notional Income/Loss of earnings: The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was a coolie worker and her income ought to have been fixed at the rate on the basis of the decision in _**Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236].**_ The notional income ought to have been taken as Rs.10,500/-per month on the basis of the dictum laid down in _**Ramachandrappa (supra)**_ whereas the Tribunal had taken only Rs.8,000/- as the notional income. The learned Standing Counsel also submits that, on the basis of the judgment rendered in _**Ramachandrappa (supra)** ,_ the notional income can be taken as Rs.10,500/-. Accordingly, the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs. 8,000/- is enhanced to Rs.10,500/-. While reassessing the compensation under the head, 'loss of earnings' the amount of Rs.16,000/- granted by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.21,000/- and hence an additional amount under the said head will come to Rs.5,000/- **.** ## 8. Compensation for disability: The learned counsel for the appellant submits that Ext.A14 disability certificate issued by Dr. Jose Kurian Katturkaran, M.A.C.A.No.4391 of 2019 : 5 : Orthopaedic surgeon, Palace Hospital, Chalakudy, shows that the whole-body disability is 7.82%. However, the Tribunal has considered only 3% of disability for fixing disability compensation. However, I do not find any reason to interfere with the assessment of disability of 3% by the Tribunal. It is found to be reasonable. However, there will be an enhancement of the amount calculated under the head ‘disability compensation’ since there is an enhancement of notional income (The amount granted by the Tribunal under the above head was Rs.43,200/-). Hence, the total disability compensation will be Rs.56,700/- (Rs.10,500x3/100x12x15 = Rs.56,700/-). Out of the said amount, Rs.43,200/- already awarded by the Tribunal has to be deducted. Accordingly, the additional amount under the head disability compensation will come to Rs.13,500/-. 9. Compensation for Pain and Suffering and loss of amenities: The learned counsel for the appellant submits that, under the head pain and suffering, though an amount of Rs.1,00,000/was claimed, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.20,000/-. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company submits M.A.C.A.No.4391 of 2019 : 6 : that since the injury is only the malunion of 5[th] metatarsal of the right foot and the disability assessed by the Tribunal is only 3%, the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal is reasonable. In the light of the injuries sustained by the appellant, the amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for pain and suffering is found to be reasonable. Similarly, for loss of amenities, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- which is found to be reasonable, and I am not inclined to grant any enhancement of compensation under those heads. The impugned Award is modified thus: |**Sl.** **No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount** **Claimed** **(Rs.)**|**Amount** **awarded by** **the** **Tribunal** **(Rs.)**|**Amount** **enhanced** **in Appeal** **(Rs.)**|**Total** **compensation** **(Rs.)**| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earnings|60,000|16,000|5000|21,000 (10,500x2 months)| |2|Transportation expenses|10,000|1,000|No modification|1,000| |3|Extra nourishment|10,000|1,000|No modification|1,000| M.A.C.A.No.4391 of 2019 : 7 : |4|Damage to clothing|10,000|500|No modification|500| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |5|Attendant expenses|20,000|Nil|No modification|Nil| |6|Medical expenses|35,000|2,990|No modification|2,990| |7|Pain and suffering|1,00,000|20,000|No modification|20,000| |8|Loss of amenities|50,000|10,000|No modification|10,000| |9|Permanent disability and loss of earning power|2,00,000|43,200 (Rs.8,000x3/ 100x12x15)|13,500|56,700 (Rs.10,500x3/ 100x12x15)| ||Total (Rs.)|4,95,000/- is limited to 1,20,000/-|94,690/-|18,500/-|1,13,190/-| In the result, the appeal is allowed. The Award dated 26.07.2019 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.(MV) 1115/2016 is hereby modified, by awarding an additional amount of Rs.18,500/- (The total compensation is Rs.1,13,190/- that is Rs.94,690/- granted by the Tribunal + Rs.18,500/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 05.10.2016 till realisation and M.A.C.A.No.4391 of 2019 : 8 : proportionate costs. The 3[rd] respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation together with interest and costs, within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The claimant shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAR Card and bank details before the respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellant at the earliest in accordance with law. Sd/- ## **SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE** anm