Surendaran v. National Insurance Co. Ltd

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Kauser Edappagath
Judgment Date: 2021-11-27
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed; the compensation awarded by the MACT is enhanced to ₹3,21,000. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount, along with interest and proportionate costs, within three months from receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation; insurer to deposit within three months along with interest and costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Surendaran

Respondents

National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Joy C. Paul

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Sarah Salvy

Case Synopsis & Summary

Surendaran, a 26-year-old welder, was injured on 17 December 2007 when his motorcycle KL-8/R 3070 was struck by a car owned by respondent James and insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. He was treated as an in-patient for about 87 days at Medical College Hospital, Kolenchery, with an open grade I distal third fracture of the left leg. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded ₹2,01,700 in total, which the appellant challenged as inadequately compensated across heads including loss of earnings, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, by-stander expenses, extra nourishment, transportation, and permanent disability. The High Court, after examining records Exts A8–A16 and testimony including Ext A10, found the claimant’s age and long treatment warranted higher compensation. It increased the monthly income to ₹5,000, and recalculated heads: loss of earnings ₹40,000; pain and suffering ₹50,000; loss of amenities ₹25,000; by-stander expenses ₹17,400; transportation ₹5,000; medical treatment charges unchanged; and permanent disability raised to ₹1,83,600 (18% disability with multiplier 17). Relying on Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, the court held there is no bar to awards exceeding the claim. The total was reassessed to ₹3,21,000, with the insurer directed to deposit the enhanced amount within three months from receipt of the judgment, with interest and costs. The appeal was allowed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

There is no restriction that the Tribunal cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claim amount.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contended that the MACT’s quantum under various heads was too low and sought enhanced compensation, citing long hospitalisation (87 days) and a low income base (claimant’s age 26). He urged adopting a higher monthly income (₹5,000) and a corrected disability assessment (18% with multiplier 17) to reflect the actual loss and future impact, including increased damages across heads. He argued that the Tribunal erred in under-compensating loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and permanent disability.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer’s counsel opposed substantial increases, emphasizing evidence-based support for the MACT award, and argued the current award already aligns with guidelines and policy terms; contested the scope of enhancement across multiple heads and reliance on the Nagappa principle to permit exceeding the claimed amount.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh	2003 (1) KLT 115	Positive	Apex Court held that there is no restriction that the Tribunal cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claim amount.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH SATURDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021/6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 MACA NO. 247 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 41/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** SURENDRAN AGED 26 YEARS S/O.KUPPAN,VAKANILAM PANAGANTTIRI HOUSE,KULAMBU BHAGAM,PANANGANTTIRI P.O,KOLLANGODU VILLAGE,PALAKKAD DIST BY ADV SRI.JOY C. PAUL ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** *1 JAMES AGED 65 YEARS, S/O PETER, SHANKARASSERY HOUSE, MONAPPALLY KARA, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE, PUTHENCRUZ PIN 682308. 2 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD SANTHI PARK,KOLENCHERY PIN 682 311 *3 GOPI, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUKURUMBAN, IRIKKANAMALAYIL HOUSE, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, PIN 682 308 *4 PETER S/O JOSEPH, ARATTUMALA HOUSE, AMBALAMUGAL P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT MACA No.247/2014 -:2:- *5 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD SANTHI PARK, KOLENCHERY PIN 682 311 (*R1 AND R3 TO R5 DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 13/11/19 IN IA 1/19 IN MACA 247/14) R2 BY ADV SMT.SARAH SALVY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA No.247/2014 -:3:- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 27[th] day of November, 2021 The claimant at the Tribunal is the appellant. He challenges the quantum of compensation awarded to him vide the impugned award. 2. The claimant met with an accident on 17/12/2007 at 6.45 p.m. while he was riding as a pillion rider in a motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KL-8/R 3070 driven by the 3[rd] respondent. The accident took place when the car driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motor cycle in which the claimant was travelling. The 1[st] respondent is the owner as well as the driver of the car involved in the accident. The 2[nd] respondent is the insurer. The liability of the 3[rd] respondent is not in dispute. The claimant claimed a total compensation of `3,50,000/-. The Tribunal found that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1[st] respondent. It is not in dispute that at the time of the accident, the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the 2[nd] respondent insurer and the policy was in force. On evaluation of the evidence, the Tribunal MACA No.247/2014 ## -:4:- awarded a sum of `2,01,700/-. Dissatisfied with the said award, the claimant has come up in appeal. 3. I have heard Sri.Joy C.Paul, the learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Sarah Salvy, the learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company. 4. The evidence on record would show that at the time of the accident, the claimant was aged 26 years. He was a welder by profession. Exts.A8, A9 and A12 to A16 are the wound certificates and discharge summaries respectively issued to the claimant from the Medical College Hospital, Kolenchery where he was treated. The records would show that he was hospitalised for 87 days. Ext.A9 discharge summary would show that the claimant had sustained open grade 1 distal 3[rd] fracture both bone left leg. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of `2,01,684/- (rounded to `2,01,700/-) under various heads as shown below. ||Head|Amount claimed|Amount awarded| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earnings|`60,000/-|`20,000/-| |2|Pain and sufferings|`80,000/-|`25,000/-| |3|Loss of amenities|`30,000/-|`18,000/-| MACA No.247/2014 -:5:- |4|By-stander expenses|`20,000/-|`8,700/-| |---|---|---|---| |5|Extra nourishment charges|`5,000/-|`5,000/-| |6|Transportation charges|`10,000/-|`2,000/-| |7|Medical treatment charges|`60,000/-|`79,784/-| |8|Compensation for permanent disability|`80,000/-|`43,200/-| ||Total||`2,01,684/-| 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is very low. Now, I will deal with the amount awarded by the Tribunal under each head. Under the head “Loss of Earnings”, the Tribunal awarded `20,000/-. It is not in dispute that the claimant could not go for work for eight months. The Tribunal took the income of the appellant as `2,500/-. I am of the view that this is on lower side. At least `5,000/- could have been taken by the Tribunal as his monthly income. Hence, I am of the view that under the said head, the claimant is entitled to a sum of `40,000/-. The next head is “Pain and Sufferings” and the Tribunal granted only `25,000/-. It is a fact that the claimant has MACA No.247/2014 -:6:- sustained open grade I distal 3[rd] fracture both bone left leg and he had undergone treatment as an in patient for about 87 days. Considering these aspects, I am of the view that the claimant is entitled to `50,000/- towards pain and sufferings. Under the head “Loss of Amenities”, the Tribunal awarded only `18,000/-. Considering the evidence on record, I am of the view that the claimant is entitled to `25,000/- under this head. Under the head “By-stander expenses”, the Tribunal granted `8,700/- which was arrived at calculating `100/- per day. I am of the view that at least `200/- per day could have been taken into account while calculating the by stander expenses. Hence, I hold that under the said head, the claimant is entitled to `17,400/-. The extra nourishment charges awarded by the Tribunal does not warrant interference. Towards the transportation charges, the claim was `10,000/-. But the Tribunal granted only `2,000/-. The claimant is a native of Palakkad and he was treated at Medical College Hospital, Kolenchery. He visited the hospital five times as borne out from the records. Hence, I hold that the transportation charges awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. I am of the view that he is entitled to `5,000/- towards transportation MACA No.247/2014 -:7:- charges. The medical treatment charges awarded by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference inasmuch as it tallies with the medical bills produced. 6. The last head is “Compensation for Permanent Disability”. The amount claimed was `80,000/- under this head whereas the Tribunal awarded only `43,200/-. The learned counsel submitted that the evidence on record would show that the claimant has sustained 18% permanent disability whereas the Tribunal without any justification took permanent disability as 8%. I find some force in the said argument. The disability certificate is Ext.A10. PW1 Doctor was examined to prove Ext.A10. Ext.A10 coupled with the evidence of PW1 would prove that the claimant has permanent disability of 18%. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have calculated the compensation under this head treating the permanent disability as 18%. Considering the age of the claimant (26 years), the multiplier applicable to him is 17. Hence, the claimant is entitled to compensation under this head at `1,83,600/- (5000x12x17x18%). But the claimant has claimed only `80,000/- under this head. The Apex Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh (2003 (1) KLT 115) has held that MACA No.247/2014 ## -:8:- there is no restriction that the Tribunal cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claim amount. 7. In the light of the above findings, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be reassessed as follows: |Head|Amount claimed|Amount awarded by the Tribunal|Amount reassessed|Difference| |---|---|---|---|---| |Loss of earnings|`60,000/-|`20,000/-|`40,000/-|`20,000/-| |Pain and sufferings|`80,000/-|`25,000/-|`50,000/-|`25,000/-| |Loss of amenities|`30,000/-|`18,000/-|`25,000/-|`7,000/-| |By-stander expenses|`20,000/-|`8,700/-|`17,400/-|`8,700| |Extra nourishment charges|`5,000/-|`5,000/-|Not interfered|--| |Transportation charges|`10,000/-|`2,000/-|`5,000/-|`3,000/-| |Medical treatment charges|`60,000/-|`79,784/-|Not interfered|--| |Compensation for permanent disability|`80,000/-|`43,200/-|`1,83,600/-|`1,40,400/-| MACA No.247/2014 ## -:9:- Total `2,01,684/`3,21,000/`2,04,100/- Thus, the appellant is entitled to an additional compensation of `2,04,100/- (Rupees Two lakhs four thousand and one hundred only). The 2[nd] respondent is directed to deposit the said amount along with interest and proportionate costs as ordered by the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appeal is allowed as above. **Sd/-** **DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH** **JUDGE** ## **Rp**