High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-07-22This appeal is allowed; enhanced compensation t...

Suresh v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA No.198 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. BADHARUDEEN
Judgment Date: 2022-07-22
Court Decision / Holding: In the result, this appeal is allowed. It is ordered that the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.1,02,660/- (Rupees One lakh Two Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty only) at the rate of 8% interest granted by the Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation excluding the period of 66 days wherein, grant of interest was specifically disallowed by the order in C.M.Application No.1 of 2014 dated 03.01.2022.
Final Disposition: This appeal is allowed; enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.1,02,660; 8% interest from the date of petition to deposit or realization, excluding a 66-day period where interest was disallowed; court-fee and deposit directions issued.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SURESH, S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR

Respondents

M/S.NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.REJI GEORGE
• SMT.ANUPAMA JOHNY
• SRI.BINOY DAVIS

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW

Case Synopsis & Summary

This MACA is an appeal by Suresh, the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.150/2008, challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor’s award dated 29 June 2013 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The accident occurred on 18 October 2007 at about 6.30 p.m., when a motorcycle (KL-7/AZ1458) ridden by the second respondent allegedly dashed into the appellant, who was riding a bicycle. The appellant suffered serious injuries, including head trauma and facial fractures. The Tribunal examined PW1 and admitted Exts. A1–A12 for the appellant and Ext.B1 for the respondents; it awarded Rs.3,06,652 with 8% interest against the claim of Rs.4,00,000. The insurer contested liability and quantum, while conceding policy coverage. The appellant urged enhancement based on Ramachandrappa principles to raise monthly income and argued that Ext.A1 shows 30% disability; the Tribunal had found 20% whole-body disability. The insurer maintained that 30% pertained to visual disability and that 20% whole-body disability was correct, opposing any further increase in percentage. The High Court examined these submissions, reaffirmed the income figure of Rs.5,000 per month for loss of earnings, and recalculated losses—ultimately allowing the appeal and granting additional compensation, culminating in an enhanced total of Rs.1,02,660, with related court-fee and deposit directions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The counsel for the appellant urged for enhancement of compensation by applying the principles laid down in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. and for reassessment of the disability percentage. It was contended that the Tribunal erred in confining the disability to 20% rather than treating the Ext. A1 certificate’s 30% disability as affecting the whole-body impairment. The appellant’s representative asserted that the monthly income of Rs.5,000 fixed by the Tribunal—though reflective of a coolie worker in 2007—should be revisited to reflect actual earnings at the time, to properly calculate loss of earnings and disability income. The argument emphasized that the serious head injuries and extended treatment should translate into a longer period of loss of earnings and greater compensation for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities. It was urged that this Court should not restrict the quantum but ensure fair compensation based on the evidence and the principle of reasonable estimation of damages.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer argued that the 30% disability noted in Ext. A1 relates to visual impairment and not to whole-body disability; accordingly, the Tribunal correctly fixed 20% whole-body disability for computation. The insurer contended that increasing monthly income based on Ramachandrappa was not warranted given the facts and evidence, and that the accident-era wages should be treated using the Tribunal’s assessment. It contended that the policy coverage was admitted but liability and the quantum treatment, including the period for loss of earnings, must remain within the evidence and statutory framework. The respondents submitted that the Tribunal’s computation was sound and that any enhancement would require robust justification beyond the cited principle, which the appellant failed to conclusively establish in the evidence.”},

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Mentioned Only	Cited by the appellant’s counsel to support increasing monthly income; the High Court did not adopt the Ramachandrappa principle to alter the fixed monthly income and thus treated it as a passing reference rather than a legally applied precedent.

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 Suresh v. National Insurance Company 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 A. BADHARUDEEN FRIDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1944** **MACA NO. 198 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 29.06.2013 IN OP(MV)NO.150/2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR** ## **APPELLANT(PETITIONER IN O.P.(MV)150/2008) :** **SURESH, S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 35 YEARS, KANNOTHUPANIKKARVEETIL, PULIYANAM P.O., ANGAMALY.** **BY ADVS. SRI.REJI GEORGE SMT.ANUPAMA JOHNY SRI.BINOY DAVIS** ## **RESPONDENT(RESPONDENT NO.3 IN O.P.(MV)150/2008) :** **M/S.NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. FIRST FLOOR, MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, N. PARAVOOR P.O., PIN - 683 513.** **BY ADV SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA No.198 of 2014 **==> picture [28 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ## **MACA No.198 of 2014** **--------------------------------------------------** ## **J U D G M E N T** This appeal is at the instance of the petitioner in O.P.(MV)No.150 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. Respondent herein is the third respondent before the Tribunal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows; The allegation of the appellant is that on 18.10.2007 at 6.30 p.m., a motorcycle No.KL-7/AZ1458, ridden by the second respondent in a rash and MACA No.198 of 2014 ..3.. negligent manner from Mangattukara to Angamaly, from east to west, had hit down the appellant, who was pedalling his bicycle from the opposite direction and thereby, the appellant suffered serious injuries. Accordingly, the appellant claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. R1 and R2 were set ex parte by the Tribunal. 5. R3 filed written statement disputing the accident and negligence. At the same time, quantum of compensation also was disputed, while admitting policy to the motorcycle involved in the accident. 6. The Tribunal examined PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A12 on the side of the appellant and Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the respondents. After MACA No.198 of 2014 ..4.. appraising the evidence, Rs.3,06,652/- was granted by the Tribunal along with 8% interest as against the claim of Rs.4,00,000/-. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant canvassed increase in the monthly income based on the principles in [(2011) 13 SCC 236], **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.** , and also canvassed increase percentage of disability accepted by the Tribunal on the submission that as per Ext.A1 disability certificate, PW1, the doctor, who authored Ext.A1 assessed 30% disability. But the Tribunal limited the same to 20%. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer would submit that as per Ext.A1 and as per the evidence of PW1, the disability assessed at the rate of MACA No.198 of 2014 **==> picture [28 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** 30% was pertaining to visual disability and the Tribunal rightly fixed the same at 20% as the whole body disability for granting compensation and therefore, any further increase in the percentage of disability cannot be justified in view of the context of facts and evidence involved in this case. 9. In this matter, the appellant, who was aged 30 years at the time of accident, had claimed his monthly income at Rs.5,000/- being a coolie worker, in a case involving the accident is of the year 2007. Therefore, Rs.5,000/- as such is accepted as the monthly income for calculating loss of earnings as well as the loss of disability income. 10. Ext.A7 is the copy of the wound certificate issued from the Little Flower Hospital and MACA No.198 of 2014 **==> picture [28 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** Research Centre, Angamaly. The same would suggest that the appellant sustained odeme right side face, eye, sever head injury, fracture frontal bone, ethmoid, fracture orbital roof right, fracture right zygoma and right maxilla. He was treated for the above infirmities for a period of 15 days and continued treatment for a period of three months. As per Ext.A1, PW1 assessed 30% visual disability and the Tribunal accepted the same to the extend of 20%. The evidence of PW1 also is that the appellant is having 30% visual disability and the whole body disability not stated by PW1 or in Ext.A1. In view of the matter, I am not inclined to revisit the disability accepted by the Tribunal as 20%. Therefore, the disability income requires re-calculation based on the monthly income at the rate of Rs.5,000/- MACA No.198 of 2014 **==> picture [28 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** per month. 5,000x12x17x20%=2,04,000/- Out of which, Rs.1,42,840/-was granted by the Tribunal. Rs.2,04,000-1,42,840= **Rs.61,160/-** more is granted under the head loss of disability income. 11. The Tribunal granted loss of earnings for a period of three months alone. Considering the serious head injuries and the treatment thereof, I am inclined to grant loss of earnings for a period of six months at the rate of Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, the loss of earnings is recalculated as under; 5,000x6=30,000/- Out of which, Rs.10,500/- was granted by the Tribunal. 30,000-10,500= **Rs.19,500/-** more is granted under the head loss of earnings. MACA No.198 of 2014 **==> picture [28 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** 12. Towards pain and sufferings, Rs.30,000/was granted by the Tribunal. Considering the serious head injuries, **Rs.10,000/-** more is granted under the said head. Towards loss of amenities, Rs.16,000/- was granted by the Tribunal. Therefore, **Rs.12,000/-** more is granted under this head. In the result, this appeal is allowed. It is ordered that the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation to the tune of **Rs.1,02,660/-** (Rupees One lakh Two Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty only) at the rate of 8% interest granted by the Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation excluding the period of 66 days wherein, grant of interest was specifically disallowed by the order in C.M.Application No.1 of 2014 dated 03.01.2022. MACA No.198 of 2014 ..9.. It is noticed that court fee for Rs.4,00,000/alone was paid by the appellant and he is liable to pay court fee for the enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.9,312/-. Therefore, the insurance company is directed to deposit Rs.93/- in the name of M.A.C.T., Ernakulam as additional court fee by a separate cheque and deposit the balance amount in the name of the appellant within two months. Sd/- **A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE** rkj