High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2011-09-22Partly Allowed; enhanced compensation for loss ...

Ulahannan Thomas v. Augustine, Bijumon Antony, The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and Tom Mathew

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.1026 of 2006

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: R. Basant
M. L. Joseph Francis
Judgment Date: 2011-09-22
Court Decision / Holding: This appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.57,150 in addition to the Tribunal’s award, with interest on the entire amount as specified by the Tribunal. All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. The corrections in I.A. 132/2012 (17.01.2012) reflect the refined computation.
Final Disposition: Partly Allowed; enhanced compensation for loss of earning capacity; other Tribunal directions upheld.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ulahannan Thomas

Respondents

Augustine
Bijumon Antony
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Tom Mathew

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. P.C. Joseph Pazheparambil

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri A.R. George

Case Synopsis & Summary

Ulahannan Thomas, the claimant, sustained cervical spine injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 30.12.2001, resulting in hospitalisation from 30.12.2001 to 8.1.2002 and a permanent disability certified at 10–12% by medical evidence. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 43,093 comprising loss of earnings, pain and suffering, transport, clothing, bystander expenses, nourishment and medical expenses, but did not award a separate head for loss of earning capacity. The appellant, then a 42-year-old businessman, challenged the Tribunal’s assessment, notably the monthly income of Rs. 2,000 adopted by the Tribunal. Although the appellant was not represented by counsel, the Insurance Company’s counsel assisted the court in understanding the facts. The High Court held, relying on Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar and Lakshmi Devi v. Mohammad Tabbar, that a non-earning housewife or unskilled manual worker can safely be assumed to earn about Rs. 3,000 per month, and, applying Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (multiplier 14 for a 42-year-old), found a discernible loss in earning capacity due to the 10% disability. Consequently, the court enhanced compensation by Rs. 57,150 (after corrections) for loss of earning capacity and kept the Tribunal’s other heads intact. The judgment underscores the multiplier-multiplicand method and the prudence of evaluating earning capacity with material evidence.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles ActClause (6) of II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Presumption of prudence under Clause (6) of II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act
Multiplier-multiplicand method for computing compensation
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (14 multiplier for 42-year-old)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in fixing a low monthly income (Rs. 2,000) and failed to award compensation for loss of earning capacity despite evidence of disability. Relying on Lata Wadhwa and Lakshmi Devi, the appellant argues Rs. 3,000 per month is a safe earning estimate for non-earning or unskilled workers. The court should apply the multiplier-multiplicand method (Sarla Verma) to assess reduced earning capacity (10% disability) using a multiplier of 14 for a 42-year-old. The Tribunal’s awards for pain and suffering and loss of amenities are not to be disturbed, while the head for earning-capacity loss should be enhanced. The appellant requests recalculation yielding an additional Rs. 57,150 as compensation.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ counsel assisted the court in understanding the facts. The Tribunal’s award aligned with evidence on record; the contested head of enhanced earning capacity was not supported by stronger evidence beyond the disability certificate. The Tribunal’s determinations on pain, suffering, and loss of amenities were not to be disturbed. The court was urged to maintain the existing compensation and apply conservative modifications.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar	AIR 2001 S.C. 3218	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that a non-earning housewife or unskilled worker may be presumed to earn Rs.3,000 per month.
Lakshmi Devi v. Mohammad Tabbar	2008 ACJ 1488	Positive	Cited for the same earning-capacity principle underpinning the Rs.3,000 per month assumption.
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	2010(2) KLT 802 (SC)	Positive	Cited for the multiplier (14) to be applied in calculating loss of earning capacity for a 42-year-old.

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 Ulahannan Thomas v. Augustine, Bijumon Antony, The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and Tom Mathew 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.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2011 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1933 MACA.No. 1026 of 2006() ----------------------- ## APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- ULAHANNAN THOMAS, KONICKAL HOUSE, KEZHUVANKULAM.P.O, PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.JOSEPH PAZHEPARAMBIL ## RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. AUGUSTINE, KARIMTHAKARACKAL HOUSE, MUTHOLY.P.O, PULIYANNOOR KARA. 2. BIJUMON ANTONY, VETTIKATTUKUNNEL, MUTHOLY.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADDL. 4. TOM MATHEW, PUTHENVAYALIL HOUSE, CHENGALAM, ANICADU, KOTTAYAM. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON 16/06/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------------------M.A.C.A. No.1026 of 2006 ----------------------------------------------Dated 22[nd] September, 2011.** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **Basant, J.** Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident, which took place on 30.12.2001. He was an inpatient for the period from 30.12.2001 to 8.1.2002. He had suffered injuries to the cervical spine. He had suffered permanent disability. A doctor certified the extent of physical disability to be 12%. The Tribunal did not accept the same, as the doctor was not examined. The Tribunal, however found that he is entitled for compensation for loss of amenities. He was aged 42 years and was a businessman by avocation. The Tribunal, by the impugned award directed payment of a total amount of Rs.43,093/- as compensation, as per the details given below: (1) Loss of earnings - Rs.4,000/- (Rs.2,000 x 2 months) (2) Pain and suffering - Rs.15,000/(3) Transport expenses - Rs.250/(4) Damage to clothing - Rs.250/(5) Bystander's expenses - Rs.500/(6) Extra nourishment - Rs.250/(7) Medical expenses - Rs.7,843/- MACA 1026/06 2 (8) Loss of amenities - Rs.15,000/-------------------Total - Rs.43,093/========= 2. Claiming to be aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellant has preferred this appeal. There is no representation for the appellant. On an earlier occasion, at the request of the counsel for the appellant, the appellant was referred to the Medical Board and the Medical Board at the Government Medical College Hospital, Kottayam has submitted a report to this Court, which shows that the appellant had suffered physical disability to the tune of 10%. MRI spine showed multiple level cervical IVDP, as a consequence of the injuries suffered. 3. Notwithstanding the fact that the appellant is not represented by counsel, we have gone through the entire facts and circumstances. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, Sri.A.R.George has helped us to correctly understand the facts. We have considered the challenge raised MACA 1026/06 3 in the memorandum of appeal. 4. The appellant was a 42 year old businessman. The accident had taken place on 30.12.2001. The Tribunal, in the absence of better evidence, had reckoned his monthly income to be Rs.2,000/-. We find that the challenge raised on this ground is satisfactory and justified. We are satisfied that Rs.3,000/- can safely be reckoned as the monthly income. In coming to this conclusion, we take note of the presumption of prudence under Clause (6) of II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. We also take note of the decisions of the Supreme Court in **Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar** (AIR 2001 S.C.3218) and **Lakshmi Devi v. Mohammad Tabbar** (2008 ACJ 1488), wherein, the Supreme Court has held that even a non-earning housewife, as also an unskilled manual worker can safely be assumed to earn an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. 5. The appellant was an inpatient for a period of 9 days. He had suffered fairly serious injuries. Only a total amount of Rs.1,250/- has been awarded under the composite head of transport expenses, damage to clothing, bystander's MACA 1026/06 4 expenses and extra-nourishment. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.3,000/- can safely be fixed as the total amount of compensation payable under these heads. 6. For pain and suffering, an amount of Rs.15,000/and for loss of amenities of life, a further amount of Rs.15,000/has already been awarded by the Tribunal. We are of the opinion that the said amounts awarded by the Tribunal do not warrant interference, by invoking the appellate jurisdiction vested in us under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. However, we find merit in the grievance raised that no amount has been awarded under the head of reduction in earning capacity. The certificate furnished to this Court by the Medical Board clearly shows that 10% physical disability has resulted. The materials produced before the Tribunal also indicated that there was 12% disability at that time. We are satisfied that 10% disability can safely be accepted. In the absence of any better evidence, we are satisfied that the reduction in earning capacity can also be safely assumed to be 10% itself. The multiplier-multiplicand method has to be MACA 1026/06 5 pressed into service. For the appellant aged 42 years, '14' is the multiplier specified in the decision in **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation** [2010(2) KLT 802 (SC)] . We are satisfied that the appellant is entitled for compensation for reduction in earning capacity. 8. The above discussions led us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.48,750/as compensation as per details shown below, in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. (1) Loss of earnings - Rs.5,000/- (3 x Rs.3,000/-, i.e., 9,000 - 4,000) (2) Compensation for transportation, damage to clothing, bystander's expenses and extra-nourishment - Rs.1,750/(3,000-1,250) (3) Compensation for reduction in earning capacity - Rs.42,000/- (2,500 x 12 x 14 x 10/100) (no amount awarded by the Tribunal) Total = Rs.48,750/- 9. We are not persuaded to agree that the amounts awarded under any other head deserves enhancement/ modification. MACA 1026/06 6 ## 10. In the result : - (a) This appeal is allowed in part. - (b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.48,750/-, in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. - (c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period, as specified by the Tribunal. - (d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. Sd/- ## **R.BASANT, JUDGE.** Sd/- ## **M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE.** tgs Paragraph 8(3) of page 5 of the judgment dated 22.09.2011 in M.A.C.A.1026/2006 is corrected and substituted as : - “(3) Compensation for reduction in earning capacity (3000x12x14x10/100) (no amount awarded by the MACA 1026/06 7 Tribunal) - Rs.50,400/Total - Rs.57,150/-” Clause (b) of paragraph 10 at page 6 of the judgment is corrected and substituted as : “(b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.57,150/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal.” vide order dated 17.01.2012 in I.A. 132/2012 in M.A.C.A. 1026/2006. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)