Thahira P.K. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Sudha
Judgment Date: 2024-04-04
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court partly allowed the appeal, enhancing total compensation to ₹95,680 from ₹91,280, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition to realization. The third respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced sum before the Tribunal within 60 days from receipt of the judgment, and upon deposit, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the petitioner at the earliest in accordance with law. Interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed; award modified to enhance compensation; insurer directed to deposit enhanced amount with interest and costs; matter disposed with interlocutory matters closed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Thahira P.K.

Respondents

United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.V. Amaresan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri P.K. Manojkumar, SC, United India Insurance

Case Synopsis & Summary

This MACA arises from an appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal’s award in O.P.(MV) No.597/2015 (dated 30 October 2018). On 21 March 2015, the claimant, a housewife and tailor, was travelling as a pillion rider when an autorickshaw (KL-13/U-4674) allegedly driven rashly struck the motorcycle, resulting in injuries. The Tribunal held the second respondent negligent and awarded ₹91,500 with 8% interest and costs. The appellant challenges the award on several heads of compensation: loss of income for a 10-month period (arguing three months is too little and that recovery would be incomplete), bystander expenses, medical expenses, and pain and suffering, as well as loss of future earnings, citing established principles. The insurer defends by contending that the injuries were not severe, hospitalisation was brief, and the disability was only 1%, justifying the Tribunal’s figures and opposing higher damages. The High Court reviews the evidence, including Exts., the disability certificate (1%), and the medical evidence, balancing the claimant’s legitimate needs against the nature of the injury and the evidence on record. It partially allows the appeal, revising several heads, and enhances the total compensation. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest and costs within 60 days, with disbursement to follow in due course.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 173

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Argued that Tribunal erred in fixing loss of income at three months despite a prolonged disability; contended for higher bystander expenses (about 30 days) and greater medical expenses; pressed for larger award for pain and suffering and for consideration of future earnings using established precedents such as Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi.

Contentions of Respondents

Submitted that the injury was modest with only 1% disability and short hospitalization; supported the Tribunal’s award on other heads and opposed substantial enhancements; argued bystander expenses should be modest and that there was no proven need for extensive medical costs.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	(2009) 6 SCC 121	Positive	Court relied on the principles in Sarla Verma for determining compensation, particularly the framework for assessing loss of future earnings and multiplier considerations.
National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Court followed Pranay Sethi principles for structuring components of compensation, including pain and suffering and loss of amenities, in the calculation of the award.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA** **THURSDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946 MACA NO. 3695 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 30.10.2018 IN OPMV NO.597 OF 2015 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY.** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **THAHIRA P.K., AGED 39 YEARS, D/O. ABOOTTY, TAILOR, RESIDING AT THAHIRA MANZIL, KOTTAYAMPOYIL P.O., KOTTAYAMPOYIL, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 691. BY ADV M.V.AMARESAN** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.3:** **UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KANNUR, PIN - 670 001. BY ADV SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,UNITED INDIA INSURANCE** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 04.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** M.A.C.A. No.3695 of 2019 2 ## **C.S. SUDHA, J.** **---------------------------------------------------M.A.C.A. No.3695 of 2019 ---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 04[th] day of April 2024** ## **J U D G M E N T** This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act), has been filed by the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.597/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 30/10/2018. The respondent herein is the third respondent before the Tribunal. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition. 2. According to the petitioner, on 21/03/2015 while travelling as a pillion rider of the motorcycle ridden by her husband, from Thalassery to Kannur, autorikshaw bearing registration No. KL-13/U-4674, driven by the second respondent in a rash or negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle and in the impact, the petitioner was thrown on to the road whereby M.A.C.A. No.3695 of 2019 3 she sustained serious injuries. The first respondent owner, the second respondent driver and the third respondent insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner. Hence the petitioner claimed an amount of ₹10,00,000/- as compensation under various heads. 3. . The second respondent driver remained _ex parte_ 4. The first respondent filed written statement admitting that he was the owner of the offending vehicle, but denied the allegation that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the second respondent. The third respondent insurer filed written statement admitting the insurance coverage of the autorikshaw, but denied the allegation that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the second respondent. 5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A5 and Ext.X1 were marked on the side of the petitioner. No documentary evidence was produced by the respondents. 6. The Tribunal on a consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the M.A.C.A. No.3695 of 2019 4 part of the second respondent driver resulting in the accident and hence awarded an amount of ₹91,500/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up in appeal. 7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court. 8. Heard both sides. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant challenges the Award of the Tribunal under the following heads- ## **Loss of income** The learned counsel for the petitioner/injured submitted that the petitioner, a housewife and a tailor, had sustained a fracture on her right wrist due to which she was unable to attend her daily chores for a period of atleast 10 months. The Tribunal awarded loss of income only for a period of three months, which is too short a period, during which time recovery was not possible. Hence loss of income ought to have been granted at least for a M.A.C.A. No.3695 of 2019 5 period of 10 months. 9.1. As per Ext.A2 wound certificate, the injuries sustained by the petitioner are tenderness, deformity and colles fracture -right wrist. Ext.X1 disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Kannur, says - “ _Physical disability of 1% (one percentage) as per Mc Bride Scale_ .” Therefore, even going by the medical evidence adduced by the petitioner, the percentage of disability sustained by her is only 1% and therefore the loss of income for three months awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and reasonable. 10. **Extra Nourishment -** It is further submitted that the extra nourishment of ₹3,000/- granted is too low and an amount of ₹10,000/- ought to have been granted by the Tribunal. _Per contra_ , it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the petitioner was hospitalised for a period of two days only and therefore the amount of ₹3,000/- granted as extra nourishment is adequate compensation. The amount of ₹3,000/- granted in this background is reasonable and hence calls for no interference. M.A.C.A. No.3695 of 2019 6 11. **'** – The learned counsel for the **Bystander s expenses** petitioner/injured submitted that the petitioner being a housewife and a tailor, the fracture sustained by her on the wrist made it extremely difficult for her in discharging her duties as a housewife as well as for carrying out her professional avocation. She required the assistance of a third person for quite a long time and hence bystander expenses at the rate of ₹2,000/- per month for a period of one year ought to have been granted. _Per contra_ it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent insurer that it would have at best taken about six to seven weeks for the injury to heal and since hospitalisation was only for a period of two days, bystander expense of ₹600/- per day for a period of two days is adequate compensation. 11.1. Admittedly, the petitioner sustained a fracture on her right wrist, which apparently is a grievous injury. The injury on the right wrist would certainly have affected the discharge of the petitioner's duty as a housewife as well as in carrying out her tailoring operations. It would have taken at least six to seven weeks for her to recover. A housewife as everyone is aware M.A.C.A. No.3695 of 2019 7 works 365 days a year and cannot afford to take any sick leave or other leave from her household chores. In such a situation, she would certainly have required the assistance of a third person to carry out her normal routine chores both of herself and of the family, for which she would certainly have required to engage a third person/help. Bystander assistance for two days has been granted by the Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner was hospitalised for a period of only two days. In the light of the injury sustained by her and as she would have required the help of a third person at least for about 30 days, bystander expenses at the rate of ₹200/- for 28 days, can be granted. 28 days has been taken because two days' expenses has already been granted. Therefore for a period of 28 days, the assistance should be granted which would be ₹5,600/- (₹200 x 28). 12. **Medical expenses** – An amount of ₹10,000/- has been granted towards medical bills. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had to undergo treatment thereafter also and that she had undergone prolonged ayurveda treatment and therefore an amount of ₹25,000/- ought to have M.A.C.A. No.3695 of 2019 8 been granted by the Tribunal. There is no evidence on record to show that any future treatment was required or that she had undergone any future treatment. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was impossible to get bills showing that the petitioner had undergone ayurveda treatment. If that be so, the petitioner could have atleast mounted the box and given a sworn statement to the effect that she had undergone future treatment, in which case her testimony would have been tested in cross examination. As there is no material on record to show that the petitioner had undergone further treatment, the claim cannot be allowed. 13. **Pain and suffering** – An amount of ₹30,000/- has been granted towards pain and suffering. This again is challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner who contends that at least an amount of ₹75,000/- ought to have been granted. In the light of Ext.X1 disability certificate which shows that the petitioner had sustained only 1% permanent disability and in the light of the nature of injury sustained by her, I think the amount of ₹30,000/granted by the Tribunal is just compensation. M.A.C.A. No.3695 of 2019 9 14. **Loss of future earnings** – An amount of ₹10,080/- has been granted by the Tribunal relying on the dictum of the Apex Court in **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009)6 SCC 121** and **National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi, (2017)16 SCC 680** . Therefore I find no infirmity warranting an interference. 15. The compensation awarded under other heads for the aforesaid reasons are appropriate and adequate and so I find no reasons to interfere with the same also. 16. The impugned Award is partly modified thus - |Sl. No.|Head of claim|Amount claimed|Amount awarded by Tribunal|Modified in appeal| |---|---|---|---|---| |1.|Loss of earning|₹5,00,000/-|₹18,000/- (₹6,000x3)|₹18,000/- (No modification)| |2.|Partial loss of earning|-|-|- (No modification)| |3.|Transport to hospital|₹10,000/-|₹3,000/- (₹600x5)|₹3,000/- (No modification)| |4.|Extra nourishment|₹10,000/-|₹3,000/- (₹1,000x3)|₹3,000/- (No modification)| M.A.C.A. No.3695 of 2019 10 |5.|Damage to clothing and articles|₹50,000/-|₹1,000/-|₹1,000/- (No modification)| |---|---|---|---|---| |6.|Bystander's expenses|₹50,000/-|₹1,200/- (₹600x2)|₹5,600/- (₹200 x 28)| |7.|Medical expenses||₹10,000/-|₹10,000/- (No modification)| |8.|Pain and suffering|₹5,00,000/-|₹30,000/-|₹30,000/- (No modification)| |9.|Compensation for permanent disability|₹5,00,000/-|₹10,080/-|₹10,080/- (No modification)| |10.|Compensation for loss of amenities|₹6,00,000/-|₹15,000/-|₹15,000/- (No modification)| ||**Total**|₹10,00,000/-|₹91,280/-|₹95,680/-| ||Claim amount ₹10,00,000/-|||| |||||| In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of **₹4,400/-** (total compensation - ₹95,680/-, that is, ₹91,280/- granted by the Tribunal + ₹4,400/ granted in appeal) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization and proportionate costs. The third respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest and costs before the M.A.C.A. No.3695 of 2019 11 Tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On deposit of the compensation amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the petitioner/appellant at the earliest in accordance with law. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. **SD/C.S.SUDHA JUDGE** ak