High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-10-26Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; ...

Sreejith v. Abdul Rasheed, Satheesh @ Satheesan, and Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 1060 OF 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Basant Balaji
Judgment Date: 2022-10-26
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed. The appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 13,80,080 with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The Tribunal’s findings on other heads are affirmed. The Insurance Company shall pay the enhanced amount (and adjust any amounts already paid) via NEFT/RTGS. If bank details are not provided within one month, no interest shall accrue on the enhanced amount after that period; interest on the Tribunal-awarded amounts remains as directed.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; Tribunal’s other findings upheld; insurer to pay enhanced amount with interest; NEFT/RTGS payment within one month.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SREEJITH

Respondents

Abdul Rasheed S/O. UHAMMED ISMAIL, THENGUVILA VEEDU,THADICADU P.O., EDAMULAKKAL,ANCHAL - 691 306
SATHEESH @ SATHEESAN S/O. SASI, KUNNUMPURATHU PUTHEN VEEDU,(SANGEETHA BHAVAN), PANACHAVILA,EDAMULAKKAL P.O., ANCHAL - 691 321
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR,VARINJAM TOWERS, RESIDENCE ROAD, KOLLAM - 691 001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Anchal C. Vijayan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri K.B. Ramanand

Case Synopsis & Summary

Sreejith, the appellant, sustained severe injuries in a road accident while driving a school bus. The incident occurred on 25 November 2009 when his bus, traveling along MC Road near Ayoor, collided with a private bus, causing his right hand to be amputated and leaving him permanently disabled. He claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arguing loss of earning capacity and permanent disability to continue as a driver. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Punalur awarded Rs. 9,04,940 with 9% interest, finding the accident caused by the other driver’s rash driving. Respondents 1 and 2 were ex parte; Respondent 3 contested that the injuries were superficial and the claim excessive. Ext. A9, a salary certificate showing Rs. 7,000 per month, was not accepted by the Tribunal due to lack of clarity and verification. On appeal, the High Court, drawing on Ramachandrappa v. Manager (2011) 13 SCC 236, fixed the appellant’s income at Rs. 7,000 per month. Considering the Medical Board’s 60% overall disability (40% future prospects) and the appellant’s age of 22, the Court applied a multiplier of 18 and cited Jakir Hussein v. Sabir (2015) 7 SCC 252 to justify the enhanced entitlement. The result was an enhanced compensation of Rs. 13,80,080 with 8% interest, with Tribunal findings upheld on other heads. The appeal was allowed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that Ext. A9 salary certificate showing Rs. 7,000 per month should be accepted to determine monthly earnings, supported by the rationale in Ramachandrappa v. Manager that Rs. 7,000 can be rightly treated as salary. He challenges the Tribunal’s rejection of Ext. A9, asserts permanent disability and loss of earning power, and seeks enhancement based on 60% disability plus 40% future prospects given his young age (22). He argues for higher compensation for loss of earning power and loss of amenities, and requests that payments be made through NEFT/RTGS with appropriate interest on the enhanced amount. He relies on precedent to justify higher wages and disability factors and urges full liability of the insurer to satisfy the augmented award.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend the accident resulted from the appellant’s own rash driving and that injuries were superficial; the vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent; they deny liability for exorbitant compensation and argue the Tribunal’s award is just and proper. With Respondents 1 and 2 ex parte, the insurer asks for dismissal of the appeal, asserting no substantial evidence supports the claimed enhancement. The respondents dispute the application of extended future prospects and argue that the earlier Tribunal award should stand, maintaining that no compelling grounds exist to grant a higher sum.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Cited to justify fixing the appellant’s monthly earnings at Rs.7,000, aligning with established authority on compensation in similar MVA scenarios.
Jakir Hussein v. Sabir and others	(2015) 7 SCC 252	Positive	Cited to support adding 40% future prospects to 60% disability for a young driver, reflecting the Supreme Court’s stance on future prospects in disability awards.

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 Sreejith v. Abdul Rasheed, Satheesh @ Satheesan, and Reliance General 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 BASANT BALAJI** **WEDNESDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 4TH KARTHIA, 1944** ## **MACA NO. 1060 OF 2016** ## **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 207/2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS** ## **TRIBUNAL , PUNALUR** ## **APPELLANT:** SREEJITH S/O. SREEDHARAN PILLAI, KAIMOOTTIL VEEDU,VAYANASALA JUNCTION, ARKANNOOR P.O.,ELAMADU VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. BY ADV SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** - 1 ABDUL RASHEED S/O. UHAMMED ISMAIL, THENGUVILA VEEDU,THADICADU P.O., EDAMULAKKAL,ANCHAL - 691 306. - 2 SATHEESH @ SATHEESAN S/O. SASI, KUNNUMPURATHU PUTHEN VEEDU,(SANGEETHA BHAVAN), PANACHAVILA,EDAMULAKKAL P.O., ANCHAL - 691 321. - 3 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR,VARINJAM TOWERS, RESIDENCE ROAD, KOLLAM - 691 001. BY ADV SRI.K.B.RAMANAND THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA NO. 1060 OF 2016 -2- ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant is the petitioner in O.P (MV) No.207/2013 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur. The claim was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. The appellant was working as a driver of a school bus bearing Reg. No. KL -02V/2822 owned by VHSS, Arkannoor. On 25.11.2009, while he was driving the bus from ayoorChadayamangalam through MC Road, and when the bus reached Ayoor Petrol Pump, he gave the signal and turned the bus towards the petrol pump that is situated on the western side of the road and then stopped it for a while. A private bus bearing Reg. No. KL05Q/1190 that was coming from south to north had hit against the front side of the school bus and due to the impact of the hit, the appellant sustained severe injuries. He was taken to Sree Gokulam Medical College, Venjaramoodu and thereafter referred to SP Fort Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. Surgery was done to amputate his right metacarpus. The second respondent was the driver of the MACA NO. 1060 OF 2016 -3- private bus and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent. 3. According to the appellant he was earning a monthly income of Rs.7000/- per month and due to the injuries, he is completely disabled and never can regain his driving capability. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte. The 3[rd] respondent entered appearance and filed written statement contending that the accident occurred not due to the negligent driving of the private bus, on the other hand, it is due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant himself. The private bus was insured with the 3[rd] respondent and as on the date of the accident, there was a valid policy. The injuries sustained are only superficial in nature. The amount claimed is exorbitant. Hence prays for dismissal of the appeal. 5. The Tribunal relying on Exts.A1 to A12, and X1, awarded a total compensation of Rs.9,04,940/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Aggrieved by MACA NO. 1060 OF 2016 -4- the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on various heads, this appeal is filed by the appellant. 6. Ext.A9 is the salary certificate issued from the VHSS, Arkannoor, Ayoor, certifying that the appellant was paid a sum of Rs.7000/- per month. But the Tribunal did not accept Ext.A9 for the reason that it was not clear whether allowance was given by the petitioner per month or for any other period. Likewise, the school seal was not there in the certificate. The person who had issued Ext.A9 certificate was also not examined before the Court to prove the same. The Tribunal was justified in not accepting Ext.A9 certificate for the reasons stated above. I fully concur with it. But going by the decision reported in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236],** even for a coolie who had met with an accident in the year 2009, the decision gives a right to claim Rs.7000/- as salary. Going by the decision reported above, I am taking the income of the appellant as Rs.7,000/- per month instead of Rs.5,000/- as taken by the Tribunal. Since the appellant was aged 22 years at the time of MACA NO. 1060 OF 2016 -5- the accident, proper multiplier to be applied is 18, which the tribunal has taken it rightly. 7. The next question to be decided is the permanent disability in calculating the loss of earning capacity. As per Ext. X1 disability certificate the Medical Board has assessed the appellant and certified that he has 40% whole body disability and 80% specific part right-hand disability. The Tribunal taking note of Ext.X1, took the average percentage of the whole body disability as well as the specific part disability and fixed it as 60%. The appellant was a driver in a school bus. The treatment certificate shows that his right hand has been amputated below the wrist. So, at no stretch of imagination it can be said that he can work as a driver anymore. Therefore, the percentage of disability taken by the Tribunal at 60% can be justified. But since the percentage of disability is more than 60% and functional disability as opined by the Medical Board is 80% specific, I am inclined to grant 40% more towards future prospects as he was aged 22 years at the time of the accident. In the decision reported in **Jakir Hussein v. Sabir and others (2015) 7 SCC 252** , MACA NO. 1060 OF 2016 -6- the Apex Court has held in the said case that the appellant being a driver aged 33 years, his right-hand completely crushed and deformed having 100% disability rendering him incapable of driving of any motor vehicle. Relying on this decision, I am justified in taking the disability as 60% plus 40% future prospects. Hence the compensation for loss of earnings can be calculated as Rs.9800(7000+2800) x 12 x 18 x 60/100 = Rs.12,70,080/-. Towards loss of earnings, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.22,500/- fixing the income as Rs.5,000/-. When this Court has fixed the income as Rs.7000/-, the loss of earnings would come to Rs.7000 x 5=35,000/-. Towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation. Though the claimant did not claim compensation for amenities in life, Rs.50,000/- is awarded by the Tribunal under the said head. The appellant is aged 22 years, unmarried at the time of the accident, whose hand has been amputated, definitely he would lose so many amenities in life including marriage prospects. Hence on the said head, I am inclined to grant a sum of Rs.25,000/- more. Accordingly, the following enhancements are made to the MACA NO. 1060 OF 2016 -7- ## award passed by the Tribunal. |Sl No.|Head of Claim|Amt. awarded by the Tribunal(Rs.)|Amt. enhanced in appeal (Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Compensation for permanent disability and loss of earning power|6,48,000/-|12,70,080/-| |2.|Loss of earnings|22,500|35,000/-| |3.|Compensation for loss of amenities|50,000/-|75,000/- (50,000 + 25,000)| ||Total|7,20,500/-|13,80,080/-| ||Amount enhanced 13,80,080-7,20,500=**Rs.6,59,580/-**||| In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.6,59,580/- (Rupees Six lakh fifty-nine thousand five hundred and eighty only) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. All other findings entered by the Tribunal stand confirmed. The Insurance Company shall pay interest for the amounts awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award and for the enhanced amounts at the rate of 8% from the date of the petition. If any amounts have already been paid, the same shall be granted set MACA NO. 1060 OF 2016 -8- off. The claimants shall produce the details of the Bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and the amount shall be transferred to the Bank account directly through NEFT/RTGS mode, within a period of one month thereafter. If the Bank account is not furnished within the time stipulated, it is made clear that no interest shall run on the enhanced amount after the period stipulated by this Court. However, if the Insurance Company fails to deposit the amount as directed, interest shall run at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of the petition. Sd/- **BASANT BALAJI** **JUDGE** JS