Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaDivision BenchAppeal disposed of

Siby Joseph v. Shibu K.K, Ansa Jacob and The National Insurance Co. Ltd

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.2085 of 2008

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. T. Ravikumar
  • B. Sudheendra Kumar
Judgment Date
2010-09-01
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal disposed of; the Court enhanced disability compensation by recalculating with Rs.5,000 monthly income, applying a 16-year multiplier for age 31-35, and using 45% disability; added compensation for loss of earnings, nourishment, clothing, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities; total addition Rs. 2,95,150 with 8% interest from the date of petition; insurer directed to deposit the amount with interest within two months.
Final Disposition
Appeal disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Siby Joseph

Respondents

  • Shibu K.K
  • Ansa Jacob
  • The National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • George Mathew
  • • Sunil Kumar A.G.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • A.R. George

Case Synopsis & Summary

The appeal arises from a motor accident on 29.12.2005 at about 9 p.m., when a bus (KL-5/F1222) driven by the first respondent allegedly acted rashly and collided with the appellant’s motorcycle. The appellant Siby Joseph sustained significant injuries and was treated as an inpatient. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,02,250 as compensation, directing the insurer to deposit the amount with the Tribunal. On appeal, the appellant challenged the quantum, stating that his income evidence was lacking; the Tribunal had fixed a notional monthly income of Rs. 2,000, while the court, applying the principle that income can be assumed in absence of evidence for injuries, elevated it to Rs. 5,000 for the relevant period (2005). The tribunal also accepted Ext.A8, a 45% permanent disability certificate issued by a medical board, for disability compensation. The Kerala High Court held that for injury cases there is no deduction of personal expenses. Taking age into account (the appellant was understood to be over 30), the court adopted a multiplier of 16 (per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation) and computed disability compensation as Rs. 4,32,000 (5000 x 12 x 16 x 45/100). Subtracting Tribunal’s Rs. 1,83,600, the appellant received Rs. 2,48,400 as additional compensation. The court re-fixated other heads: loss of earnings for 8 months, nourishment, clothing, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, yielding an overall additional compensation of Rs. 2,95,150 with 8% interest from petition date. The insurer was directed to deposit this amount within two months. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation - multiplier rule for disability/age-based compensation (16 multiplier for age 31-35)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the notional monthly income at Rs. 2,000 in 2005, arguing that there was no evidence of income but that a higher figure of Rs. 5,000 should be adopted. The appellant also argued that deducting 1/3 of income for personal expenses is inappropriate in injury cases and that the disability should be assessed on an extended basis with a proper multiplier. The assertion of 45% permanent disability supported by Ext.A8 was used to calculate enhanced compensation, and the court was urged to consider all heads of damage including loss of earnings, medical and nourishing expenses, clothing, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, while applying the appropriate rate of interest on the awarded amount.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the Tribunal’s quantum was reasonable and that the insurer should deposit the awarded amount with interest. They supported the Tribunal’s use of Ext.A8 and submitted that the income methodology was acceptable given the lack of income proof. They urged the court to confirm the Tribunal’s order but argue against excessive enhancement beyond the evidence presented, and to ensure the award reflects the proper constitution of damages without duplicative or speculative entries.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)PositiveCited and applied for the multiplier rule (16) corresponding to the appellant’s presumed age group, guiding calculation of disability 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 Siby Joseph v. Shibu K.K, Ansa Jacob and The National 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 MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/119TH KARTHIKA, 1939 MACA.No. 2085 of 2008 ( ) -------------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 678/2006 of MACT, PALA DATED 23-05-2008 ## APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: --------------------------------- SIBY JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 32 YEARS, MULLAYIL HOUSE, THIDANADU KARA, KONDOOR VILLAGE. BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G ## RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. SHIBU.K.K, S/O.K.U.KORAH, KARIYIL HOUSE, POLACHIRA BHAGOM, CHINGAVANAM KARA, NATTAKAM VILLAGE. 2. ANSA JACOB, KOLLAMKUNNEL HOUSE, ERICKADU BHAGOM, PUTHUPALLY, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, KOTTAYAM. R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR & B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JJ.** ## **========================== M.A.C.A. No.2085 OF 2008 ==========================** Dated this the 31[st] day of October, 2017 ## **JUDGMENT** _Sudheendra Kumar, J._ The appellant sustained injuries in a road traffic accident which occurred on 29.12.2005 at 9 p.m. While the appellant was riding his motor cycle along the public road, a bus bearing Reg.No.KL-5/F1222, driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motor cycle and as a consequence, the appellant sustained serious injuries. He was immediately taken to the hospital and treated there as inpatient. 2. In connection with the injuries sustained by the appellant, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,02,250/- as compensation. 3. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the first respondent. **M.A.C.A.2085/2008** 2 Therefore, the third respondent, being the insurer of the vehicle, was directed to deposit the amount of compensation before the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, this appeal has been filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the third respondent. 5. The challenge in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant claimed that he was getting a monthly income of Rs.8,000/- during the relevant period. However, no document was produced to prove the same. In such circumstances, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs.2,000/-. The accident was during the year 2005. Therefore, even in the absence of any evidence, we are fixing the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs.5,000/-. The appellant sustained 45% permanent disability as is evident from Ext.A8 disability certificate issued by the medical board. Since Ext.A8 was **M.A.C.A.2085/2008** 3 issued by a medical board, the Tribunal accepted the entire disability covered by Ext.A8 for the purpose of calculating the disability compensation. The Tribunal had deducted 1/3[rd] of the notional monthly income towards personal expenses of the appellant. Since this is a case of injury, there is no need to deduct any amount towards personal expenses. 1/3[rd] of the monthly income of the deceased will be deducted for the of the purpose calculating dependency compensation in the case of death. This being a case of injury, the Tribunal was not correct in deducting 1/3[rd] of the monthly income. The appellant contended that he was aged 30 years during the relevant period. However, no material has been produced to prove his date of birth. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellant must have crossed the age of 30 years. Therefore, we are taking '16' as the multiplier which is applicable to the age group of 31 to 35 years as held by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)] for the purpose of calculating the disability **M.A.C.A.2085/2008** 4 compensation. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.4,32,000/- (5000x12x16x45/100) as compensation towards permanent disability. Subtracting the amount of Rs.1,83,600/awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,48,400/- as additional compensation under the said count. Considering the nature of injuries and the period of treatment of the appellant as inpatient, the Tribunal had granted loss of earnings for a period of 8 months. Since we have re-fixed the notional monthly income, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation towards loss of earnings for 8 months. Subtracting the amount of Rs.16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs.24,000/- under the said count. The appellant had undergone treatment as inpatient for 30 days in the hospital. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.3,000/- at the rate of Rs.100/- per day as compensation towards extra nourishment. Subtracting the amount of Rs.1,000/- awarded by **M.A.C.A.2085/2008** 5 the Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs.2,000/- under the said count. Towards damage to clothing, we are granting an additional amount of Rs.750/- as the Tribunal awarded only Rs.250/- under the said count. Considering the nature of injuries, we are granting an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards pain and suffering as the Tribunal awarded only Rs.20,000/under the said count. Taking into account the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and the period of treatment undergone by him in the hospital and also the extent of permanent disability sustained by him, we are granting an amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation towards loss of amenities as against Rs.25,000/awarded by the Tribunal. Subtracting the amount awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.15,000/- as additional compensation towards loss of amenities. Thus, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,95,150/- as additional compensation. The above amount carries interest at the rate of 8% per **M.A.C.A.2085/2008** 6 annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The third respondent, being the insurer of the vehicle, is directed to deposit the amount of compensation with interest before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Appeal stands disposed of as above. **Sd/-** **C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **Sd/-** **B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR (JUDGE)** **spc/** **M.A.C.A.2085/2008** 7 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **M.A.C.A.2085/2008** 8 **JUDGMENT September, 2010**