V.H.KUTTYMOOSA v. K.BHASKARAN and NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- SOPHY THOMAS
- Judgment Date
- 2022-09-23
- Court Decision / Holding
- The appeal is allowed. The appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 76,020 (comprising Rs. 15,000 for loss of earnings, Rs. 5,000 for transportation, Rs. 2,000 for extra nourishment, Rs. 35,020 for medical expenses, Rs. 4,000 for bystander expenses, Rs. 5,000 for pain and suffering, and Rs. 10,000 for loss of amenities). The 2nd respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount in the appellant’s bank account with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till deposit, subject to deductions for liabilities, within two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment, in terms of Circular No. 3 of 2019. The award amount will not carry interest for 200 days of delay in filing the appeal; additional Rs. 35,020 as medical expenses shall carry interest only from the date of appeal. The deposit shall comply with the directives in the Circular and other clarifications.
- Final Disposition
- Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation as specified; insurer to deposit within two months with interest; no costs.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- V.H.KUTTYMOOSA
Respondents
- K. BHASKARAN
- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
- • SMT.ANILA PETER
- • SMT.C.PRABITHA
- • SMT.K.N.RAJANI
- • SRI.J.VIVEK GEORGE
Counsels for Respondents
- • SRI.SAJI KURIACHAN
- • SRI.A.R.GEORGE
Case Synopsis & Summary
V.H. Kuttymoosa, a 59-year-old claimant, sustained injuries in a road traffic collision on 17 December 2009 when a car driven by the first respondent knocked him down near BOT junction, Kundannoor-Island road. He was hospitalized for 14 days and later required implant removal in 2012. He claimed Rs 3.5 lakh as compensation in OP(MV) 2524/2009; the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, awarded Rs 1,74,500. The insurer admitted the accident and policy; no oral evidence was adduced; Exts. A1–A17 were marked. The appellant contends that the tribunal erred in notional income assessment, arguing Rs 6,000 per month, guided by Ramchandrappa v. Royal Sundaram (AIR 2011 SC 2951), which would yield higher compensation. The tribunal had fixed Rs 3,000 notional income and awarded various heads. The court notes the appellant’s age, occupation, and injury, and determines that notional income of Rs 6,000 per month is appropriate, given the seriousness of the case and prior jurisprudence; however, since the claim itself was Rs 6,000, it does not go beyond that. The Tribunal’s other heads—loss of earnings, transport, extra nourishment, medical expenses, bystander costs, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities—are re-examined, leading to an enhanced aggregate of Rs 76,020. The appeal is allowed; the insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest within two months, in accordance with Circular No. 3 of 2019, etc., and without costs.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The appellant contends that the Tribunal committed error in fixing a low notional income. He relies on Ramchandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. to support a higher notional income (Rs. 6,000 per month for 2009), arguing that since the claimed amount is Rs. 6,000 per month, the court should not exceed it. He argues for reassessing heads of compensation, including loss of earnings, transport, extra nourishment, medical expenses, bystander expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, and for recognizing the extent of his injuries (fracture fibula, undisplaced fracture of pubic rami) and the two surgeries performed. He submits that the Tribunal should grant fair compensation reflecting his actual losses and the long rehabilitation period.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents submit that the Tribunal’s award was largely reasonable given the injuries and hospitalizations. They admit liability under the policy but contend that the Tribunal’s framework for calculating compensation was proper and that there is no evidence of permanent disability. The insurer does not challenge the admissions and argues against excessive enhancement beyond the established medical costs, bystander expenses, and pain and suffering; they emphasize that the Tribunal’s conclusions in other heads were justified by the evidence presented and the nature of injuries.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ramchandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. | AIR 2011 SC 2951 | Positive | Cited to justify notional income norms for calculating compensation in MACT matters; used to support fixing notional income at Rs. 6,000 per month in this case, given the appellant’s profile and claim amount. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 V.H.KUTTYMOOSA v. K.BHASKARAN and NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.