High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-07-13Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation d...

Subramannian Palakkott House v. The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd

Case / Petition Number:MACA No. 2206 of 2015

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman, J.
Judgment Date: 2022-07-13
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed in part. The High Court re-fixes the petitioner’s monthly income at Rs. 7,840 (guided by Ramachandrappa) and recalculates the compensation: increased loss of earnings to Rs. 94,080 (from Rs. 72,000) and enhanced permanent disability compensation to Rs. 3,04,896, with an additional Rs. 1,00,000 to be considered under loss of amenities; additionally, Rs. 5,000 bystander’s expense is granted (increased from Rs. 3,000), and Rs. 2,000 for related bystander costs; total enhanced compensation calculated as Rs. 3,78,976. The award bears 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs, and the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount before the Tribunal within two months of receiving a copy of the judgment. The original award under other heads was retained as just and reasonable.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation determined and to be deposited by insurer within two months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Subramannian Palakkott House, Azhinnillam P.O., now residing at Femina Quarters, Spinning Mill, Cheroor? Chelemoore P.O., Malappuram

Respondents

The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd
1st respondent (owner-cum-driver of KL-58-E-8805)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. E. Narayanan
• (Advocate)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. K.B. Ramanand

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA No. 2206 of 2015) challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur, in O.P.(MV) No. 223/2014. The appellant, a security guard aged 44 at the time of the accident (27 August 2011), suffered severe injuries including amputation of the right leg above the knee. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,05,200 with 9% interest and costs, distributing amounts across heads such as loss of earnings, medical and miscellaneous expenses, pain and suffering, and compensation for permanent disability and loss of earning capacity. The appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in not adopting Ramachandrappa’s guideline for notional income of a casual labourer and should have then fixed a higher monthly income (Rs. 7,840) instead of Rs. 6,000. The petitioner argues for higher compensation under several heads and relies on the Supreme Court decision in Ramachandrappa (2011). The Insurance Company defends the Tribunal’s findings, asserting negligence by the claimant and that the claimed amount is excessive. The High Court allows the appeal in part, re-fixes the notional income to Rs. 7,840 per month, recalculates damages (notably for loss of earnings and permanent disability) resulting in an enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,78,976, with 9% interest and costs, directing deposit by the insurer within two months from the judgment date (13 July 2022).

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income principle for calculating compensation in MAC/PO cases (Ramachandrappa doctrine)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argued that the Tribunal erred by not following Ramachandrappa (2011) and by not adopting the notional income of Rs. 7,840 per month for a security guard, instead fixed at Rs. 6,000. Relying on Ramachandrappa (supra), the petitioner contends that notional income should be higher, which would lead to greater compensation under loss of earnings and related heads, including enhanced disability compensation, bystander and medical costs, and loss of amenities. The petitioner also contends that the Tribunal’s awarded figures under various heads (e.g., pain and suffering, clothing, and expenses) must be revisited in light of the assault’s consequences and the duration of suffering.

Contentions of Respondents

The Insurance Company contended that the accident occurred due to the petitioner’s negligence and that the compensation claimed was excessive. They maintained that the Tribunal’s findings on negligence were correct and that the overall heads and amounts should be confined within the statutory framework without excessive enhancement. They also argued against elevating notional income and questioned the proportionality of the added damages in light of the evidence presented.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.	2011 (13) SCC 236	Positive	The High Court followed the Ramachandrappa principle to fix the notional monthly income for a security guard at Rs. 7,840, instead of accepting the Tribunal’s Rs. 6,000, in determining 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 Subramannian Palakkott House v. The 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 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 22ND ASHADHA,** ## **1944** ## **MACA NO. 2206 OF 2015** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 26.2.2014 IN OPMV 223/2014 OF** **MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL TIRUR** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** SUBRAMANNIAN PALAKKOTT HOUSE, AZHINNILLAM PO, NOW RESIDING AT FEMINA QUARTERS, SPINNIN MILL, CHELEMORE PO, MALAPPURAM BY ADV SRI.E.NARAYANAN ## **RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:** THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD ADITYA TOWERS, THEVAKKARA ROAD, OPP. RTO, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR 673003 BY ADV SRI.K.B.RAMANAND THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A. No.2206 OF 2015 2 ## **JUDGMENT** This appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur in O.P.(MV) No.223/2014. The parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as petitioner and respondents in accordance with their status in O.P.M.V. 2. Heard Sri. E.Narayanan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.B.Ramanand, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. 3. According to the petitioner, on 27.8.2011 at about 8.30 a.m., while he was doing traffic duty in front of Calicut Airport, a car bearing registration No. KL-58-E-8805 driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the petitioner and he suffered serious injuries. The petitioner was a security guard and was aged 44 years at the time of the accident. He was hospitalised for ten days and his right leg was amputated above the knee. As per Ext.A7 disability certificate, the Medical Board has assessed M.A.C.A. No.2206 OF 2015 3 the whole body disability of the petitioner as 80%. The petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.25 lakhs as compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. 4. The 1[st] respondent, the owner cum driver of the car, was set _ex parte_ before the Tribunal. The 2[nd] respondent Insurance Company filed a written statement admitting that the vehicle was covered by a valid policy of insurance at the time of the accident. However, they contended that the accident happened due to the negligence of the petitioner and that the amount of compensation claimed is excessive. 5. The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the negligence of the 1[st] respondent and awarded an amount of Rs.10,05,200/- as compensation with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate costs. 6. The split up of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is reproduced hereunder: M.A.C.A. No.2206 OF 2015 4 |Sl.No.|Head of claim|Amt.Claimed|Amt.awarded| |---|---|---|---| |1.|Loss of earning (Total)|5,20,000|72000| |2.|Loss of earning (Partial)|NIL|NIL| |3.|Medical, miscellaneous & bystander expenses|600000|10402| |4.|Future treatment|NIL|NIL| |5.|Bystanders expenses|10000|3000| |6.|Transportation expenses|15000|5000| |7.|Extra nourishment|30000|15000| |8.|Damage to clothing, etc.|5000|1000| |9.|Pain and suffering|500000|100000| |10|Loss of dependency|NIL|NIL| |11|Loss of consortium|NIL|NIL| |12.|Loss of love and affection|NIL|NIL| |13.|Loss of estate|NIL|NIL| |14.|Compensation towards permanent disability & loss of earning capacity|500000|748800| |15.|Compensation for loss of amenities , inconvenience etc|200000|50000| |16.|Any other heads:- Loss of earning power|300000|NIL| ||Funeral expenses|NIL|NIL| ||Total|26,80,000|| ||Claim limited to Rounded to|2500000|10,05,202 1005200| M.A.C.A. No.2206 OF 2015 5 7. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation, the petitioner has preferred this appeal. 8. According to the petitioner, going by Ext.A6 salary certificate, the Tribunal ought to have taken his monthly income as Rs.7,840/-. The Tribunal did not accept Ext.P6 salary certificate on the ground that the same was not proved. Accordingly, the Tribunal took the notional monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.6,000/-. In **Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (2011 (13 SCC) 236),** the Apex Court has fixed the notional monthly income of a casual labourer in the year 2004 as Rs.4,500/-. Therefore, as per the guidelines issued in **Ramachandrappa** (supra), the notional income of the petitioner who was a security guard should be taken as Rs.8,000/-. Therefore, I re-fix the monthly income of the petitioner for the purpose of assessment of compensation as **Rs.7,840/-** as claimed by him in the petition. 9. An amount of Rs.72,000/- has been awarded M.A.C.A. No.2206 OF 2015 6 under the head loss of earnings. The Tribunal found that the petitioner was incapable of doing any work for a period of one year. Since I have re-fixed the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.7,840/-, the compensation for loss of earnings is recalculated as Rs.94,080/- (7840x12 months) and the petitioner is entitled for an enhanced amount of **Rs.22,080/-** under the said head. 10. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.7,48,800/as compensation for permanent disability/loss of earning capacity taking the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.6,000/-. Since the petitioner was aged 44 years at the time of the accident, the multiplier to be adopted is ‘14’. With the re-fixed monthly income and applying the multiplier of ‘14’, the compensation for permanent disability/ loss of earning capacity is assessed as Rs.10,53,696/-/(7840x12x14x80/100) and the petitioner is awarded an amount of **Rs.3,04,896/-** (10,53,696-7,48,800) additionally under the said head. M.A.C.A. No.2206 OF 2015 7 11. It has come out in evidence that the petitioner was hospitalised for ten days. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,000/- as bystander’s expenses. I am inclined to grant an amount of Rs.5,000/- @ Rs.500/- per day. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for an enhanced amount of **Rs.2,000** /- (5000-3000) under the said head. 12. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for loss of amenities, inconvenience etc. Since the right leg of the petitioner has been amputated above the knee, his movement would be curtailed and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- will be just and reasonable compensation under the said head. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for an amount of **Rs.50,000/-** more under the head loss of amenities, inconvenience etc. 13. The compensation awarded under the other heads appears to be just and reasonable and the same does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The petitioner is entitled for an enhanced compensation of M.A.C.A. No.2206 OF 2015 8 **Rs.3,78,976/-** (Rs.22,080 + Rs.3,04,896 + Rs.2,000+ Rs.50,000) with 9% interest per annum from the date of the petition till realisation with proportionate costs. The 2[nd] respondent Insurance Company shall deposit the said amount with interest and proportionate costs before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** al/-+ ## M.A.C.A.No.2206 of 2015 This Court doth order and decree that the respondent herein/2nd respondent do pay the appellant herein/petitioner a sum of I 5,451/- (Rupees Five thousand four hundred and fifty one only) being his proportionate costein this appeal. ## Memal of costs for the a|]pellant Court Fee paid Stamp on Vakalath Advocate's Fee Cost incurred in : I 100/- : I 1®/- : I 21,348/-(Certified) getting L.C judgment and decree Petition Fee process Fee : I 19/- : I 20/- : I 5/. Total I 21'5®2/- Proportionate costs for the appellant in this appeal - I 5,451/- (Rupees Five thousand four hundred and fifty one only) **==> picture [234 x 74] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** Joint Regis Signed On: +pr. cho. \0. cfroAi „lxp(„ **----- End of picture text -----**