SUKUMARAN K.C. v. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1945 ``` ``` MACA NO. 1331 OF 2014 ``` ``` [AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 28.02.2014 IN OP(MV)NO.25/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA] ``` ## `APPELLANT/PETITIONER:` ``` SUKUMARAN K.C, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN, KOLAKKATTUKUDIYIL HOUSE, KARTIKULAM P.O., VAYALKARA, MANAMTHAVADY TALUK. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) ``` ## `RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:` ``` RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, KOZHIKODE. POLICY NO.NOT KNOWN, PIN - 673 004. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.K.B.RAMANAND, SC ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 1331 OF 2014 ``` ``` -2- ``` ## `JUDGMENT` ``` This matter is of the year 2014 and has not been admitted. However, both sides are ad idem that it can be disposed of, after being formally admitted, based on the undisputed evidence on record, handed over by them across the Bar. I, ``` ``` therefore, admit this Appeal and proceed to dispose it of finally, with the consent of both sides. ``` ``` 2.On 29.08.2012, when the appellant was ``` ``` standing on the side of the road, he was knocked down by the offending Goods Autorickshaw, driven in a rash and negligent manner. He ``` ``` suffered injuries and had to be treated, including as an inpatient for 10 days; whereupon, he filed OP(MV)No.25/2013 before the ``` ``` Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Wayanad, Kalpetta, (‘Tribunal’, for short), seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.3,65,063/-, ``` ``` MACA NO. 1331 OF 2014 ``` ``` -3- ``` ``` limited to Rs.2,50,000/-; but which has been allowed only to a sum of Rs.1,25,416/-. He thus assails the compensation as being inadequate. ``` ``` 3.Smt.Vishnuja P.M. - learned counsel for ``` ``` the appellant, argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in fixing the notional income of her client because, the evidence on record, particularly Ext.A10 – Certificate issued by the Edavaka Grama Panchayat, would establish that he was earning a monthly income of Rs.35,021/-. She then pointed out that, going by the medical ``` ``` evidence on record, the injuries suffered by her client are so grievous that the compensation awarded under the heads“Bystander Expenses”, ``` ``` “Extra Nourishment”, “Pain and Suffering” and ``` ``` “Loss of Amenities” is extremely exiguous. She ``` ``` thus prayed that this Appeal be allowed. ``` ``` 4.Sri.K.B.Ramanand – learned Standing ``` ``` Counsel for the Insurance Company, on the other ``` ## `MACA NO. 1331 OF 2014` ``` -4- ``` ``` hand, submitted that, since the accident happened in the year 2012, the computations adopted by the Tribunal in arriving at the ``` ``` compensation are without error; adding that since the appellant was, admittedly, working permanently in a Grama Panchayat, the learned Tribunal was without error in having adopted his ``` ``` notional income after his retirement at the age of 56 as Rs.5,000/- and then in adopting the multiplier ‘9’. He thus prayed that this Appeal ``` ``` be dismissed. ``` ``` 5.I have considered the afore rival ``` ``` submissions on the touchstone of the evidence on ``` ``` record – copies of which have been handed over across the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties with the express consent that it can be ``` ``` acted upon by this Court without dispute. ``` ``` 6.It is without doubt that the appellant was working as the Secretary of a Grama ``` ## `MACA NO. 1331 OF 2014` ``` -5- ``` ``` Panchayat and drawing a monthly income of Rs.35,021/-. It is also without contest that, on account of the injuries and consequent treatment, he had not suffered any loss of income, except as has beenawarded by the ``` ``` Tribunal. ``` ``` 7.Obviously, therefore, the Tribunal was ``` ``` without error in having reckoned the notional income of the appellant at the age of his ``` ``` retirement, namely when he attains the age of 56; and then by using the multiplier ‘9’. ``` ``` However, while doing so, the learned Tribunal ``` ``` ought to have been guided by the postulations in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, ``` ``` namely,Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal ``` ``` Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], which mandates that even in the case of a person who is a ‘Coolie’ or with an unascertainable income, in the year 2012 – when ``` ``` MACA NO. 1331 OF 2014 ``` **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` the accident occurred – the minimum figure to be taken is Rs.8,500/-. The Tribunal has, however, taken the notional income to be only Rs.5,000/- and I see no reason why the afore figure should be denied to him. I am not considering a higher figure than this because, it is admitted at the Bar that the appellant would draw pension after his retirement. ``` **==> picture [412 x 76] intentionally omitted <==** ``` appellant had suffered the following injuries: ``` **==> picture [378 x 100] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 9.As I have already said above, the ``` ``` appellant was admitted and treated as an ``` **==> picture [411 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** ## `MACA NO. 1331 OF 2014` ``` -7- ``` ``` subjected to follow-up treatment as well. I notice that the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.1,500/- under the head“Bystander Expenses” and Rs.1,000/- under the head “Extra ``` ``` Nourishment”, which are obviously at the rates of Rs.150/- and Rs.100/- per day. Even going by the fiscal standards of the year 2010, this is ``` ``` extremely exiguous; and I propose to revise it ``` ``` to be Rs.300/- and Rs.200/-, respectively. ``` ``` 10.Again, taking note of the grievous ``` ``` injuries suffered by the appellant and the fact ``` ``` that he had dislocation of clavicle, I am of the firm view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head “Loss of Amenities” ``` ``` require to be increased marginally, at least to ``` ``` the extent claimed for; while that under the head “Pain and Suffering” to be enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. ``` ``` 11.Finally, there is no dispute between the ``` ``` MACA NO. 1331 OF 2014 ``` ``` -8- ``` ``` parties as to the percentile of “Permanent Disability” suffered by the appellant because, it is certified to be 12% in Ext.C1 – Disability ``` ``` Certificate. ``` ``` In the afore circumstances, I partly allow ``` ``` this Appeal in the following manner: ``` ``` (a) The compensation under the head ``` ``` “permanent Disability” is enhanced to ``` ``` Rs.1,10,160/- (Rupees one lakh ten thousand one ``` ``` hundred and sixty only), from Rs.64,800/-, ``` ``` adopting the notional income of the appellant to ``` ``` beRs.8,500/-andthepercentileof ``` ``` “Disability” to be ‘12’ as per Ext.C1. The ``` ``` multiplier adopted is ‘9’, as correctly done by ``` ``` the learned Tribunal. ``` **==> picture [377 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** ``` “Bystander Expenses” is enhanced to Rs.3,000/- ``` ``` (Rupees three thousand only), from Rs.1,500/-, ``` ``` reckoning the per diem expenses for the same to ``` ``` MACA NO. 1331 OF 2014 ``` ``` -9- ``` ``` be Rs.300/-, for 10 days hospitalization. ``` ``` (c)The compensation under the head “Extra ``` ``` Nourishment” is enhanced to Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only), from Rs.1,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, reckoning the per diem expenses for the same to be Rs.200/-, for 10 days ``` ``` hospitalization. ``` ``` (d)The compensation under the head “Pain ``` ``` and Suffering” is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only), from ``` ``` Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. ``` ``` (e) The compensation under the head “Loss ``` ``` of Amenities” is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), from Rs.2,500/- awarded by ``` ``` the Tribunal. ``` ``` (f)In all other heads, the compensation ``` ``` granted by the Tribunal will remain intact. ``` ``` Consequently, the appellant will be at full ``` ``` liberty to recover the compensation, as enhanced ``` ``` MACA NO. 1331 OF 2014 ``` ``` -10- ``` ``` by this Court, from the Insurance Company, along ``` ``` with interest at the rate of 7.5%, as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of claim until it is recovered.He will also be entitled to ``` ``` proportionate costs on the enhanced amount as ordered by the Tribunal. ``` ``` In view of the afore, the amount as fixed ``` ``` above shall be deposited by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy this judgment. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ## `DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN` ``` JUDGE ``` ``` akv ```