Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAppeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded t...

Vottu Raja v. Abraham @ Regi and Others

Case / Petition Number:MACA No.1800 of 2012

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A. Badharudeen
Judgment Date
2022-06-08
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal allowed. The appellant is entitled to Rs. 1,33,360 as total compensation, with Rs. 62,520 already granted by the Tribunal and Rs. 70,840 enhanced, to be paid with the same rate of interest as the Tribunal. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months and to recover the entire award, including the enhanced portion, from the first respondent insurer upon deposit. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned. The insurer’s liability arises from violation of policy conditions for want of a driving license to the driver of the offending vehicle.
Final Disposition
Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded to the claimant with liability shifted to insurer for payment; insurer directed to deposit within two months and recover the award; delay in filing appeal condoned.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Vottu Raja

Respondents

  • Abraham @ Regi, S/o.Philipose, Cheruvazhakunnel House, Vakkapuzha Kara Bhagom, Vakkapuzha Kara, Chettakkal Village, Pala, Kottayam District - 686575
  • Shaji B. Nair, S/o.Balachandran Nair, Kizhakkevayalil House, Edamattom, Pala, Kottayam District - 686575
  • The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By the Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Cherupushpam Building, Pala, Kottayam District - 686575
  • Renjith, S/o Narayanan Nair, Karukappallil House, Cheruvalli Village, Kanjirappally Taluk, Kottayam District - 686507
  • Malanadu Motor Sales and Service Private Ltd., Chellarkkadu Kara, Padavangady Village, Ranny Taluk, Pathanamthitta District - 689672

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri Shiju Varghese

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Baby Thomas
  • • Sri Lal George
  • • K.Anil Joseph
  • • George T.J

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA) arises from a claim under OP(M.V) 531/2008 filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, seeking compensation for injuries suffered in a road accident involving vehicle KL-5/11-2925. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 62,529 in compensation, with liability on the insurer conditioned on the driver’s driving license status. The claimant, Vottu Raja, challenged the award before the Kerala High Court, contending that the assessment of income and disability undercompensated the claimant. The Insurance Company defended the award, arguing policy terms and the absence of a valid driving license should limit liability. The High Court, after hearing both sides, cited Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. and applied its ratio to re-evaluate several heads of compensation: fixing monthly income at Rs. 5,000 (instead of Rs. 3,000); increasing disability to 9% (from 6%), based on Ext.A7; enhancing loss of earnings for three months; and recalculating disability income. Consequently, the court held the appellant entitled to Rs. 1,33,360 in total, with Rs. 70,840 as enhanced compensation beyond the Tribunal’s award, at the same interest rate. The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months and to recover the award from the first respondent per policy conditions. Delay in filing the appeal was condoned; judgment dated 8 June 2022.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contended that the Tribunal’s compensation was inadequately low. He argued that the monthly income should be Rs. 5,000 instead of Rs. 3,000, citing the decision in Ramachandrappa to justify higher earnings. He pressed for a higher disability percentage (9% as per Ext.A9) and sought enhanced compensation for loss of earnings and pain and suffering, asserting that the open fracture and internal fixation necessitated greater compensation.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents, led by the Insurance Company, argued that the award was properly computed given policy terms and the absence of a driving license for the driver, and that the Tribunal’s findings on disability and losses were appropriate given the evidence (including Ext.A9). They urged that there was no mala fide or material misappreciation warranting a higher sum and challenged any significant upward revision of income or disability percentage.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.(2011) 13 SCC 236PositiveThe High Court applied the ratio from Ramachandrappa to fix the claimant’s monthly income at Rs. 5,000, indicating reliance on the precedent to justify higher earnings for computation of compensation.

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 Vottu Raja v. Abraham @ Regi and Others 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. BADHARUDEEN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1944 MACA NO. 1800 OF 2012** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(M.V) 531/2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT** ## **CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** VOTTU RAJA, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.NAGA THEVAR, THUKKAYAMMAN KOVILINU, SAMEEPAM THAMASOM, WARD NO.1, DOOR NO.52 C, MAMBAM MUNICIPALITY, UTHAMAPURAM, KOMBAI ROAD, THENI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT ADIMACKAL HOUSE, VELLIYEPPALLY KARA, MEENACHIL VILLAGE, PALA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHIJU VARGHEESE ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** 1 ABRAHAM @ REGI, S/O.PHILIPOSE, CHERUVAZHAKUNNEL HOUSE, VAKKAPUZHA KARA BHAGOM, VAKKAPUZHA KARA, CHETHAKKAL VILLAGE, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 575. 2 SHAJI B.NAIR, S/O.BALACHANDRAN NAIR K.S., KIZHAKKEVAYALIL HOUSE, EDAMATTOM, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 575. 3 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REP. BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., CHERUPUSHPAM BUILDING, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 575. 4 RENJITH, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, KARUKAPPALLIL HOUSE, CHERUVALLY VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 507. 5 MALANADU MOTOR SALES AND SERVICE PRIVATE LTD., CHELLARKKADU KARA, PADAVANGADY VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 672. ## **M.A.C.A No.1800 of 2012** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** BY ADVS. BABY THOMAS SRI.LAL GEORGE K.ANIL JOSEPH GEORGE T.J THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 08.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **M.A.C.A No.1800 of 2012** 3 ## **JUDGMENT** This appeal is at the instance of the claimant in O.P.(M.V) No.531/2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala and the award dated 15.05.2012 in the above case is under challenge in this appeal. Respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The appellant herein being a victim of motor accident had approached the Tribunal and claimed compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- from the respondents, attributing negligence against 1[st] respondent, the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-5/11-2925. 4. The Insurance Company filed written statement and resisted the claim, while admitting policy. 5. The Tribunal examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exts.A1 to A11 on the side of the ## **M.A.C.A No.1800 of 2012** 4 appellant. Exts.B1 to B4 marked on the side of the respondents. 6. Thereafter, as against the claim of Rs.2,50,000/-, Rs.62,529/awarded as compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Recovery right was given to the Insurance Company on finding that the 1[st] respondent had no driving license at the time of accident. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant highlighted inadequacy of the award on two specific grounds. According to him, though the appellant claimed his income at Rs.5,000/- per month, being a coolie worker, the Tribunal fixed Rs.3,000/- and the same is on the lower side. 8. Applying the ratio in _**Ramachandrappa v.**_ _**Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance**_ _**Company Ltd.**_ : **(2011) 13 SCC 236,** the monthly income claimed by the appellant at Rs.5,000/is reasonable and, therefore, I re-fix the ## **M.A.C.A No.1800 of 2012** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** monthly income at Rs.5,000/- for the purpose of reassessing the compensation. 9. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant sustained fracture both bones right leg and he was subjected to internal fixation and removal thereof. Though the appellant produced Ext.A9 disability certificate before the Tribunal fixing 14% disability, the Tribunal fixed the same at 6%. According to the learned counsel for the appellant at least 10% disability ought to be fixed. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that there is no mal-union in this matter and the disability certificate is not issued by the Medical Board and the doctor, who authored Ext.A9 also was not examined. In such scenario, the Tribunal rightly fixed the disability at 6% and no more increase is warranted. 11. While appraising the rival submissions, ## **M.A.C.A No.1800 of 2012** 6 I have perused Ext.A7, the discharge card. Ext.A7 would go to show that the appellant sustained open fracture both bones right leg, and he underwent treatment by internal fixation could be gathered. Therefore, I am inclined to fix the disability at 9% instead of 6% fixed by the Tribunal. The age and multiplier applied by the Tribunal are not in dispute. 12. The Tribunal granted Rs.3,000/- under the head 'loss of earnings' for one month alone. I am inclined to grant Rs.5,000/- as 'loss of earnings' for a period of three months. Thus, the appellant is entitled to get Rs.15,000/-. Accordingly, **Rs.12,000/-** more is granted under the head 'loss of earnings'. 13. Apart from that, taking monthly income @ Rs.5,000/-, the disability income also recalculated as under: 5000x12x16x9% = 86,400/- Out of which, Rs.34,560/- was granted by the Tribunal. Thus, **Rs.51,840/-** more is granted 7 ## **M.A.C.A No.1800 of 2012** under the head 'loss of disability income'. 14. Under the head 'pain and sufferings', the Tribunal granted Rs.10,000/- alone. I am inclined to increase the same by **Rs.7,000/-** more. 15. In the result, this appeal is allowed. It is held that the appellant is entitled to get Rs.1,33,360/- as compensation, out of which Rs.62,520/- was granted by the Tribunal and the balance amount of **Rs.70,840/-** is granted as enhanced compensation with the same rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, payable by the Insurance Company, from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation, excluding the period from 16.08.2012 to 15.11.2021, which was excluded by this Court in the matter of interest as per order dated 15.11.2021, while condoning the delay in filing this appeal. 16. As per the award amount, the learned Tribunal granted recovery right to the ## **M.A.C.A No.1800 of 2012** 8 Insurance Company from the 1[st] respondent, on finding violation of policy conditions for want of driving licence to the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, it is specifically ordered that the Insurance Company can realise the entire award amount including the enhanced compensation along with interest from the 1[st] respondent, the insurer, immediately on deposit of the same before the Tribunal. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the same in the name of the appellant within two months from today and proceed to recover the same thereafter, as directed above. Sd/- ## **A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE.** ww