Vineesh V. Kumar v. National Insurance Company Limited

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman
Judgment Date: 2022-06-13
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is disposed of. The court enhances the compensation by Rs.59,064, with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The 3rd respondent-insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, with interest and costs. The period of delay in filing the appeal (138 days) is to be excluded in calculating interest, as per the order dated 07.07.2017 in this appeal.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of; enhanced compensation; interest at 9% p.a.; deposit within two months; exclusion of 138 days in interest calculation.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vineesh V. Kumar

Respondents

National Insurance Company Limited

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.B. Arunkumar

Counsels for Respondents

• K.B. Ramanand

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arising from a claim petition filed under the Motor Vehicle Act, where Vineesh V. Kumar (appellant) sustained serious injuries as a pillion rider when an autorickshaw, driven rashly by the 2nd respondent, collided with his motorcycle on 19 October 2011. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) at Ottappalam held the driver negligent, assigning joint and several liability on the owner, driver, and insurer, and awarded Rs. 2,14,640 with 9% interest and costs. The insurer admitted the policy but argued the compensation was excessive. The MACT’s computation covered several heads: loss of earnings, transportation, medical expenses (Rs. 71,500), pain and suffering, future medical expenses (declared nil), and incapacity like disability and loss of enjoyment of life, with various amounts for each. The petitioner’s income was not substantiated; the tribunal used Rs.5,000/month notional income for calculation, even though the accident occurred in 2011. On appeal, the court relied on Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram (2011) to fix notional income at Rs.8,000/month and re-assessed disability compensation. The court enhanced the total compensation to Rs.1,66,? (total enhancement Rs.59,064), with 9% interest, and directed deposit within two months, excluding 138 days of delay. The appeal is disposed of with the enhanced reliefs granted in favour of the appellant.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the MACT’s award is inadequate and must be enhanced. He argues that the notional monthly income should be Rs.8,000 (per Ramachandrappa), not Rs.5,000, given the 2011 accident. Consequently, losses for earnings, disability, and other pecuniary heads require recalculation leading to higher compensation. The appellant challenges the Tribunal’s calculations on several heads, including future medical expenses and pain and suffering, and seeks full compensation for permanent disability where applicable.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer contends that the compensation awarded was excessive and exorbitant. It points to the validity of the policy and argues that the Tribunal erred in allowing certain heads or in the quantum of amounts—seeking reduction or upkeep of the award and a restrained balance of liability.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
RamachandraPpa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.	2011 (13) SCC 236	Positive	Quoted and applied to fix notional monthly income at Rs.8,000 for calculations, as the court followed this decision in reassessing compensation.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1944 ``` ``` MACA NO. 3723 OF 2016 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.02.2016 IN OP(MV)NO.282/2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ``` ## **`OTTAPPALAM`** ## **`APPELLANT/PETITIONER:`** ``` VINEESH V. KUMAR S/O. LATE VIJAYAKUMAR, V.V.BHAVAN, CHERAKODE P.O., VALLAPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.3:`** ``` NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED 3RD FLOOR, KANOOS EAST FORT RESORT, 18/77, KUNNATHURMEDU P. O., PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 018. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.K.B.RAMANAND ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` M.A.C.A NO.3723 OF 2016 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** The petitioner in O.P (M.V) No.282 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam is the appellant. The status of the parties herein is referred to as it appears in the claim petition. 2. On 19.10.2011, while the petitioner was travelling on a motor cycle as a pillion rider, an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-09/AB-1153, driven by the 2nd respondent in rash and negligent manner, hit against the motor cycle and the petitioner sustained serious injuries. He filed the claim petition seeking an amount of Rs.2,37,500/- as compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and driver of the autorickshaw, remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid ``` M.A.C.A NO.3723 OF 2016 ``` ``` 3 ``` insurance policy with regard to the autorickshaw. However, they contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant. The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent-driver, of the autorickshaw and that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,14,640/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident with 9% interest per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. 4. The compensation awarded to the petitioner under various heads is as follows:- |Sl. No|Head of Claim|Amount Claimed (in Rupees)|Amount Awarded (in Rupees)|Basics - vital details in a nut shell| |---|---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earning (Total)|30000|25000|Loss of earnings for 5 months @ Rs.5,000/- per month| |2|Transportation|10000|3000|Hospitalisation| ``` M.A.C.A NO.3723 OF 2016 ``` ``` 4 ``` ||expenses|||and several reviews| |---|---|---|---|---| |3|Extra nourishment|3000|1600|8 days inpatient treatment and considering the gravity and nature of injuries| |4|Damage to clothingetc.|2000|1000|Nominal amount| |5|Medical Expenses|60000|71500|Relying on medical bills Ext.A9 series| |6|Bystander Expenses|2500|1600|Bystander during hospitalisation Rs.200x8 days| |7|Future medical expenses|30000|Nil|Unsustainable| |8|Pain and sufering|50000|25000|Considering the gravity of the injuries sustained and duration of the hospitalisation and treatment| |9|Compensation for continuing or permanent disability|30000|73440|Taking the multiplier 18. Rs.5000x12x18x6. 80/100 = Rs.73,400/-| |10|Loss of earning power|10000|Nil|The efects of the injuries sustained on the earning capacity of the petitioner is considered while determining the compensation for| ``` M.A.C.A NO.3723 OF 2016 ``` ``` 5 ``` |||||disability. Hence a separate claim under this head is not allowed.| |---|---|---|---|---| |11|Loss of enjoyment and amenities of life|10000|12500|Considering the nature of injuries and the efect of injuries on the personal life of the petitioner and also age.| ||Total|237500|214640|Rs.2,14,640/- with interest @ rated of 9% per annum from 18/6/2013 till realization.| 5. According to the petitioner, he was a fabrication worker. Though the petitioner claimed Rs.5,000/- as his monthly income, the Tribunal found that he has not let in any evidence to prove his income. However, the Tribunal took the notional monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.5,000/- for computation of compensation. The accident happened in the year 2011. **v.** Therefore, going by the decision in **Ramachandrappa Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance** ``` M.A.C.A NO.3723 OF 2016 ``` ``` 6 ``` **Company Limited** [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional income of the petitioner should be taken as Rs.8,000/per month. Accordingly, I re-fix the notional monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.8,000/-. 6. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards loss of earnings for five months taking the notional monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.5,000/-. Taking Rs.8,000/- as the monthly income, the compensation for loss of earnings is re-calculated as Rs.40,000/- (8,000x5 months). Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for an enhanced compensation of **Rs.15,000/-** (40,000 - 25,000) under the said head. 7. Towards compensation for continuing disability or permanent disability, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.73,440/- taking the notional monthly income as Rs.5,000/-. Since I have re-fixed the notional monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.8,000/-, the compensation for continuing or permanent disability is ``` M.A.C.A NO.3723 OF 2016 ``` ``` 7 ``` re-assessed as Rs.1,17,504/- (8,000x12x18x6.80%). The Tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.73,440/under the said head. Therefore, the petitioner is granted **Rs.44,064/-** (1,17,504-73,440) more under the head continuing disability or permanent . disability 8. I find that the compensation awarded under other heads is just and reasonable. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for an enhanced compensation of **Rs.59,064/-** (15,000+ 44,064) with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal along with interest and proportionate costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While calculating the interest on the enhanced amount, the period of delay in filing the appeal (138 days) shall be ``` M.A.C.A NO.3723 OF 2016 ``` ``` 8 ``` excluded in terms of the order dated 07.07.2017 in this appeal. The appeal is disposed of. ``` Sd/- ``` ``` MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE ``` SPR