Sreejith v United India Insurance Co. Ltd

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Sophy Thomas
Judgment Date: 2022-08-12
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed. The insurer is directed to deposit enhanced compensation of Rs.73,930 in the claimant's bank account with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting liabilities, if any, of the appellant towards tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund. No order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sreejith

Respondents

United India Insurance Co. Ltd

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri V. N. Ramesan Nambisan

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. R. Rema

Case Synopsis & Summary

This MACA arises from OP(MV) No.982/2010 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara, challenging an award of Rs.87,391 for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident on 7 March 2010. The appellant, Sreejith, was a 28-year-old auto-rickshaw driver who claimed a monthly income of Rs.7,500 and anticipated appointment as a police constable; he argues the Tribunal erred by fixing a notional income of Rs.4,000 per month and by failing to reflect potential earnings and subsequent disability. Ext. C1 shows a 6% disability, but the Tribunal treated it as 2% without justification, and the award under heads such as loss of earning, extra nourishment, pain and suffering, and bystander expenses is said to be inadequate. He contends that, under Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 2011 SC 2951), his income should be fixed at Rs.7,500 per month and the loss of earnings should be calculated for six months (Rs.45,000), with Rs.24,000 already paid, leaving Rs.21,000 to be enhanced. He asks for higher compensation for extra nourishment (Rs.2,500), pain and suffering (Rs.20,000), bystander expenses (Rs.2,750), and for permanent disability to be assessed on the whole body with a 4% impairment and a multiplier of 17, yielding Rs.61,200. The Tribunal’s findings are thus re-appraised, and the court ultimately awards enhanced compensation of Rs.73,930 and directs deposit with interest within two months.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that his income as a 28-year-old auto-rickshaw driver should be fixed at Rs.7,500 per month (notional income) in line with Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 2011 SC 2951). He asserts that the Tribunal erred by fixing notional income at Rs.4,000 per month and by failing to reflect potential earnings and the disability noted in Ext. C1 as 6% (where the Tribunal treated it as 2% without justification). He argues that loss of earnings must be calculated for six months (Rs.45,000) with Rs.24,000 already paid, leaving Rs.21,000 to be enhanced; higher compensation for extra nourishment (Rs.2,500), pain and suffering (Rs.20,000), and bystander expenses (Rs.2,750) should be awarded. He contends permanent disability should be assessed on a whole-body basis with 4% impairment and a multiplier of 17, given age 28, resulting in Rs.61,200; total enhanced compensation would be Rs.73,930. The heads of claim and disability assessment are urged to be aligned with the cited precedent and the facts of the case.

Contentions of Respondents

Not explicitly stated in the provided excerpt.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	AIR 2011 SC 2951	Positive	Cited to justify fixation of notional income for the claimant in similar contexts and to guide disability assessment; the court adopts the Ramachandrappa principle for determining income and related awards.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS** **FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1944** **MACA NO. 76 OF 2016** **OP(MV) 982/2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VATAKARA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **SREEJITH, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. KUTTIKRISHNAN ADIYODI, ATTUPOTHI KUNIYIL, BHOOMIVATHUKKAL P.O., VALAYAM, VATAKARA.** **BY ADV SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN** ## **RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:** **UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD BRANCH OFFICE, CITY TOWER, NEAR OLD BUS STAND, VADAKARA, PIN - 673 101.** **BY ADV SMT.R.REMA, STANDING COUNSEL** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.08.2022, THE COURT ON 12.08.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA NO. 76 OF 2016** 2 ## **J U D G M E N T** This appeal has been preferred by the claimant in OP(MV) No.982 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara, alleging inadequacy of the compensation awarded on 25.09.2013. 2. The petitioner met with a road traffic accident on 07.03.2010, while he was pillion riding a motorcycle through Peruvattum Thazhe public road, Vatakara. KL-18/E-1212 motorcycle ridden by the 2[nd] respondent in a rash and negligent manner suddenly entered into the Public Road and knocked down the motorcycle in which the appellant was travelling, and he sustained serious injuries. The offending motorcycle was validly insured with the 3[rd] respondent United India Insurance Company. Against his claim for Rs.1.5 lakh, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.87,391/- which is under challenge in this appeal. 3. According to the appellant, he was a 28 year old autorickshaw driver earning monthly income of Rs.7,500/- and **MACA NO. 76 OF 2016** 3 he was in receipt of an advice memo for appointment as a Police Constable. But due to the accident and injury, he could not report for duty and his appointment was cancelled. He suffered disability also due to the injury sustained. Though the Medical Board certified his disability as 6%, the learned Tribunal took his disability as 2% without any justification. The compensation awarded under other heads such as loss of amenities, extra nourishment, pain and suffering, bystander expenses are also under challenge. 4. Now let us have a re-appraisal of the facts and evidence to verify whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the award of the Tribunal, which requires interference by this Court. 5. The accident, injury and the policy are not in dispute. Regarding the monthly income of the appellant, according to him, he was a 28 year old auto driver earning monthly income of Rs.7,500/-. But the Tribunal took his notional income as Rs.4,000/- per month. Even going by **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company** **MACA NO. 76 OF 2016** 4 **Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951]** , for a vegetable vendor in the year 2010 the notional income fixed was Rs.7,500/-. According to the appellant, he was earning monthly income of Rs.7,500/-. The appellant, who is an auto rickshaw driver, is eligible to get his notional income fixed in par with the notional income fixed in **Ramachandrappa’s** case cited _(Supra)_ . So, his monthly income can be fixed notionally @ Rs.7,500/-. Loss of earning was calculated for six months. So he is eligible to get Rs.45,000/- (7,500 x 6). He was already paid Rs.24,000/- under that head. So, he is eligible to get enhanced compensation of Rs.21,000/- under the head ‘loss of earning’. 6. There is no dispute with respect to the fact that he was hospitalised for 11 days in connection with the accident. But only Rs.1,000/- was awarded towards extra nourishment. The Tribunal ought to have been awarded at least Rs.2,500/towards extra nourishment and so, he is eligible to get the balance amount of Rs.1,500/- under that head. 7. Towards pain and suffering, he was awarded **MACA NO. 76 OF 2016** 5 Rs.15,000/- only. He suffered type II open comminuted fracture patella (left) and a lacerated wound on the knee. Ext.C1 Disability Certificate shows that his patella was surgically removed and he had suffered permanent disability of 6%. Considering the nature of injury suffered and hospitalisation for 11 days, Rs.20,000/- would have been appropriate towards pain and suffering. So, he is eligible to get Rs.5,000/- more, under the head ‘pain and suffering’. 8. Towards bystander expenses, he was awarded only Rs.1,200/- though he was hospitalised for 11 days. The accident occurred in the year 2010. So, he was eligible to get bystander expenses of minimum Rs.250/- per day. So, he is eligible to get Rs.2,750/- (250 x 11). Since he was already paid Rs.1,200, he is entitled to get the balance Rs.1,550/under the head ‘bystander expenses. 9. Now coming to the compensation for permanent disability, though Ext.C1 Certificate issued from the Medical Board of Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Vatakara certified his permanent disability as 6%, the Tribunal opined that in Ext.C1 **MACA NO. 76 OF 2016** 6 Disability Certificate, there is no mention regarding his occupational disability and moreover, there is no reference that the disability noted was with respect to the whole body. He claimed to be an auto rickshaw driver and the injury suffered was on his left patella, which was surgically removed. No doubt it will affect his occupation as a driver, since flexion of knee joints is necessary for smooth driving of a vehicle. It is true that in Ext.C1 Disability Certificate, it is not mentioned that the 6% disability noted was with respect to the whole body. Even then considering his avocation and the nature of injury he had suffered, the Tribunal ought to have assessed his whole body disability at a minimum of 4%. Since he was aged only 28, the multiplier applicable was 17. So, the compensation for permanent disability could have been Rs.61,200/- (7,500 x 12 x 17 x 4 / 100). He was already paid Rs.16,320/- under that head. So he is eligible to get the balance Rs.44,880/- towards enhanced compensation for permanent disability. **MACA NO. 76 OF 2016** 7 |Head of claim|Amount awarded by the Tribunal|Amount awarded in appeal|Difference to be drawn as enhanced compensation| |---|---|---|---| |Loss of earnings|Rs.24,000/-|Rs.45,000/-|Rs.21,000/-| |Extra nourishment|Rs.1,000/-|Rs.2,500/-|Rs.1,500/-| |Pain and suffering|Rs15,000/-|Rs.20,000/-|Rs.5,000/-| |Bystander expenses|Rs.1,200/-|Rs.2,750/-|Rs.1,550/-| |Permanent disability|Rs.16,320/-|Rs.61,200/-|Rs.44,880/-| |Total|||Rs.73,930/-| 10. In the result, the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.73,930/- (21,000 + 1,500 + 5,000 + 1,550 + 44,880) (Rupees Seventy Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty only). 11. The respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation in the Bank account of the appellant with interest @7.5% from the date of petition till the date of deposit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The deposit must be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06/09/2019 and clarified in O.M.No.D1/62475/2016 **MACA NO. 76 OF 2016** 8 dated 07/11/2019 after deducting the liabilities, if any, of the appellant towards Tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. Sd/- **SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE** DSV/06.08.2022