VINOJOSE S/O JOSE v. BIJUPAUL KUMBAPPILLIL and Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: SOPHY THOMAS
Judgment Date: 2024-07-23
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed to the extent enumerated: enhanced compensation of Rs.1,77,200 to be deposited by the 3rd respondent insurer with 8% interest per annum from the date of petition to the date of deposit, within two months; Tribunal to disburse after deducting liabilities such as tax, balance court fee, and legal benefit fund. No order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Enhanced compensation of Rs.1,77,200; insurer to deposit with 8% interest within two months; Tribunal to disburse after liabilities; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

VINOJOSE S/O JOSE

Respondents

Bijupaul Kumbappillil
Joby Jacob (Deleted)
The Branch Manager, The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Muvattupuzha

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SMT. ANEPAUL

Counsels for Respondents

• T.V. AJAYAKUMAR

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, in MACA No. 1329 of 2014, heard an appeal by the claimant in OP(MV) No. 947 of 2010 challenging a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, award of Rs. 2,90,664 for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident on 10.09.2010 involving a Maruti car driven rashly by the 2nd respondent, resulting in serious injuries including partial loss of vision in the left eye. The claimant, a 37-year-old auto-rickshaw driver with stated earnings of Rs.6,000 per month, contends the tribunal erred in fixing a lower notional income (Rs.3,500 per month). The insurer contends the Tribunal’s award is just. The High Court invokes the Ramachandrappa decision to discuss notional income flexibilty in MACT claims and ultimately fixes notional income at Rs.6,000 per month, consistent with the claimant’s income. It recalculates loss of earnings for six months due to a 30% permanent disability and 2/60 loss of vision, concluding Rs.36,000 as notional earnings for six months, with Rs.10,500 already awarded, yielding Rs.25,500 as enhanced loss of earnings. Additional enhancements include Rs.9,000 for pain and suffering, Rs.17,000 for loss of amenities, Rs.1,800 for bystander expenses (adjusted from Rs.1,800 already awarded, plus Rs.1,800 balance), Rs.1,500 for extra nourishment, and Rs.1,22,400 as balance of permanent disability (Rs.3,24,000 minus Rs.2,01,600). The enhanced total is Rs.1,77,200. The insurer is directed to deposit this amount with 8% interest within two months, with the Tribunal disbursing after deductions, and the Court noting no further costs. The appeal is allowed to the extent above and no order as to costs.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income doctrine (Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, AIR 2011 SC 2951)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the tribunal fixed a lower notional income (Rs.3,500 per month) than his claimed Rs.6,000 per month and relies on Ramachandrappa to support a higher notional income. The appellant seeks enhancement across heads including loss of earnings (by using Rs.6,000 as notional income and extending the period to six months), pain and suffering, loss of amenities, bystander expenses, extra nourishment, and permanent disability, with recalculation at Rs.6,000 per month and a 30% disability. The medical and hospitalization details underpin the claim for enhanced compensation.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer contends the Tribunal’s award is just and reasonable; the policy and accident are undisputed; no illegality; seeks upholding of award with no modification; the final relief is framed to keep liability within reasonable bounds.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	AIR 2011 SC 2951	Positive	Used to justify notional income adjustments in MACT claims; court applies the concept, fixing notional income at Rs.6,000 per month in the case.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1946 MACA NO. 1329 OF 2014`** ``` AGAINSTTHEAWARDDATED10.12.2013INOPMVNO.947OF2010OFMOTOR ACCIDENTCLAIMSTRIBUNAL,MUVATTUPUZHA APPELLANT/APPELLANT: ``` ``` VINOJOSE S/O.JOSE, RESIDINGAT PALLUPATTA HOUSE, VARAPETTY, KOTHAMANGALAM. ``` ``` BYADV SMT.ANEYPAUL ``` ``` RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ``` ``` 1BIJUPAUL KUMBAPPILLIL HOUSE, PALAMATTOM.P.O .,KODIMATTOM, KOTHAMANGALAM. PIN-686691. ``` ``` 2JOBYJACOB (DELETED)* S/O.JACOB, KUZHIKKATTUMAL ILHOUSE, KUTTAMANGALAM, PERUMBAVOOR. PIN-683542. ``` ``` 3THEBRANCH MANAGER THEUNITED INDIA INSURANCECO. LTD., MUVATTUPUZHA. ``` MACA No. 1329 of 2014 ``` PIN-686661. ``` ``` *(R2DELETED FROMTHEPARTY ARRAYVIDE ORDERDTD 2/6/2020INIA 1/2020INMACA 1329/2014) ``` ## **`BY ADV`** ## **`T.V.AJAYAKUMAR`** ``` THISMOTORACCIDENTCLAIMSAPPEALHAVINGCOMEUPFORHEARING ON23.07.2024,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` 2 MACA No. 1329 of 2014 3 ## **SOPHY THOMAS, J.** ## **=====================** MACA No. 1329 of 2014 ## **========================** ## J U D G M E N T ## Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2024 This appeal is at the instance of the claimant in OP (MV) No. 947 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, impugning the award on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. 2. On 10.09.2010, at about 04.30 p.m., while the appellant was driving his autorickshaw through Aluva Munnar road, KL-07/Q-1994 maruti car driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against his autorickshaw and he sustained serious injuries, including injury to his left eye which resulted in partial loss of vision. He was admitted and treated in hospital for 12 days. He was a 37-year-old auto driver earning monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. He approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. MACA No. 1329 of 2014 4 But learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.2,90,664/ and hence this appeal. 3. The 1st respondent was the owner, 2nd respondent was the driver and the 3rd respondent was the insurer of the offending Maruti car. The policy as well as the accident are not in dispute. But learned counsel for the 3rd respondent insurer would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and hence it needs no modification. 4. Now this Court is called upon to answer whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety, in the impugned award warranting interference by this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/insurer. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, though the appellant was earning monthly income of Rs.6,000/- as an autorickshaw driver, learned Tribunal fixed his notional income at a lower rate of Rs.3,500/- per month. She would rely on the decision _**Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951]**_ , to say that even MACA No. 1329 of 2014 5 a coolie worker was eligible to get his notional income fixed @ Rs.7,500/in the year 2010. Accepting that argument, but on finding that the claim of the appellant was only Rs.6,000/- per month, this Court is inclined to fix his notional income @ Rs.6,000/- as claimed by him. 7. Learned Tribunal assessed loss of earnings for a period of 3 months. We have fixed his notional income @ Rs.6,000/- per month. Since he was an autorikshaw driver, and he suffered loss of vision of his left eye by 2/60 leading to permanent disability of 30%, this Court is inclined to take loss of earning for a period of six months. @ Rs.6,000/-. So he is entitled to get Rs.36,000/-. After deducting Rs.10,500 awarded by the Tribunal, he is entitled to get Rs.25,500/as enhanced compensation under the head loss of earning. 8. Towards pain and suffering, learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.16,000/-. The appellant suffered injury to his left eye causing loss of vision to a considerable extent, and was hospitalized for 12 days. So, this Court is inclined to award Rs.9,000/- more under the head pain and suffering. MACA No. 1329 of 2014 6 9. Towards loss of amenities, learned tribunal awarded Rs.13,000/-. He was a 37-year-old autorickshaw driver and loss of vision of left eye by 2/60 might have affected his future life and occupation to a great extent. So this Court is Court is inclined to award Rs.17,000/- more under the head loss of amenities. 10. Towards bystander expenses, this Court is inclined to award Rs.300/- per day for 12 days of hospitalization, which will come to Rs.3,600/-. After deducting Rs.1,800/- already awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.1,800/-. 11. Towards extra nourishment also, this Court is inclined to award Rs.1,500/- more considering the period of hospitalization. 12. Towards permanent disability, the appellant is entitled to get Rs.3,24,000/- when his monthly income is taken @ Rs.6,000/- and on applying the multiplier of 15 (6,000 x 12 x 15 x 30/100). After deducting Rs.2,01,600/- awarded by the Tribunal, he is entitled to get the balance Rs.1,22,400/-. 13. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all other heads seems to be reasonable, and hence it needs no modification. MACA No. 1329 of 2014 7 ## 14. The enhanced compensation awarded in this appeal is ## given in the table below:- |_Head of claim_|_Amount_ _awarded by_ _the Tribunal_|_Amount_ _awarded_ _in appeal_|_Difference to be_ _drawn as_ _enhanced_ _compensation_| |---|---|---|---| |Loss of earning|10,500/-|36,000/-|25,500/-| |pain and suffering|16,000/-|25,000/-|9,000/-| |Loss of amenities|13,000/-|30,000/-|17,000/-| |Bystander expenses|1,800/-|3,600/-|1,800/-| |Extra nourishment|2,000/-|3,500/-|1,500/-| |Permanent disability|2,01,600/-|3,24,000/-|1,22,400/-| |Total|||1,77,200/-| 15. In the result, the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.1,77,200/-. 16. The 3rd respondent insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,77,200/with 8% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit (excluding 57 MACA No. 1329 of 2014 8 days of delay in filing the appeal) before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Learned tribunal shall disburse that amount to the appellant after deducting the liabilities, if any, towards Tax, balance court fee, and legal benefit fund. The appeal is allowed to the extent as above and no order as to costs. Sd/- **SOPHY THOMAS** **JUDGE** ## _**RMV**_