This appeal against an award of Rs. 87,500 was allowed. The court enhanced compensation to Rs. 1,71,000 by considering income and disability, directing the insurer to pay with 9% interest from the petition date.
Enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,71,000 with 9% interest from the date of petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
WEDNESDAY,THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 18TH ASWINA, 1940
MACA.No. 1056 of 2016
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 144/2013 of ADDL.MACT-I, KOTTAYAM DATED 25-04-2015
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
CHRISTY KURUVILA @ CHRISTY AGED 21 YEARS S/O.P.K.KURUVILA, CHRISTY VILLA, 746/6/88, PAYYANAMON P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.M.JOSHI SMT.SIJI K.PAUL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 TIJO K. BABY S/O.KOSHY BABY, VALAYIL HOUSE, NEAR POST OFFICE, KUTIPURAM, THAZHAVA VILLAGE, SRP MARKET P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM PIN: 683 101.
2 HAMEED KUNJU
S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, SHAMEER MANZIL, PADANAYARKULANGAR NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM, PIN: 683 101
3 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN: 683 101
BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA.No. 1056 of 2016
2
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award in O.P. (MV)No. 144/2013 of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - I, Kottayam by the injured. The appellant sustained injuries in a motor accident and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.87,500/-. Being aggrieved by that, the injured preferred this appeal.
MACA.No. 1056 of 2016
3
of 2013. The claimant's evidence consist of documentary evidence of Exts.A1 to A12. Respondents examined RW1 and RW2 and their documents were marked as Exts.B1 to B8. The disability certificate was marked as Ext.X1.
Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010 (8) SCALE 567) reiterated the principle in relation to the assessment of damages for personal injuries cases as follows:
“ 17. While assessing compensation in accident cases, the High Court or the Tribunal must take a reasonably compassionate view of things. It cannot be disputed that the appellant being a painter has to earn his livelihood by virtue of physical work. The nature of injuries which he admittedly suffered, and about which the evidence of PW1 is quite adequate, amply demonstrates that carrying those injuries he is bound to suffer loss of earning capacity as a painter and a consequential loss of income is the natural outcome.
18. It goes without saying that in matters of determination of compensation both the Tribunal and the Court are statutorily charged with a responsibility of fixing a 'just compensation'. It is obviously true that determination of a just compensation cannot be equated to a bonanza. At the same time the concept of 'just compensation' obviously suggests application of fair and equitable principles and a reasonable approach on the part of the Tribunals and Courts. This reasonableness on the part of the Tribunal and Court must be on a large peripheral field.
Both the Courts and Tribunals in the matter of this exercise should
MACA.No. 1056 of 2016
4
be guided by principles of good conscience so that the ultimate result become just and equitable (See Mrs. Helen C. Rebello and Ors. v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. and Anr. MANU/SC/0621/1998: AIR 1998 SC 3191).
19. This Court also held that in the determination of the quantum of compensation, the Court must be liberal and not niggardly in as much as in a free country law must value life and limb on a generous scale (See Hardeo Kaur and Ors. v. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation and Anr. MANU/SC/0235/1992: (1992) 2 SCC 567).
20. The High Court and the Tribunal must realize that there is a distinction between compensation and damage. The expression compensation may include a claim for damage but compensation is more comprehensive. Normally damages are given for an injury which is suffered, whereas compensation stands on a slightly higher footing. It is given for the atonement of injury caused and the intention behind grant of compensation is to put back the injured party as far as possible in the same position, as if the injury has not taken place, by way of grant of pecuniary relief. Thus, in the matter of computation of compensation, the approach will be slightly more broad based than what is done in the matter of assessment of damages. At the same time it is true that there cannot be any rigid or mathematical precision in the matter of determination of compensation”.
separately as pecuniary and special damages. The object is to compensate injury so far as money can compensate. When compensation is to be awarded for pain, suffering and loss of amenities in life, special circumstances of the claimant have
5
MACA.No. 1056 of 2016
to be taken into account. Amount of compensation for nonpecuniary loss is not easy to determine, but award must reflect that different circumstances have been taken into consideration. Hence, the multiplier method has to be followed to calculate pecuniary loss upon annual basis. Appellant contended that the injured was working as a tuition teacher and was getting Rs.5,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal did not consider that aspect and no amount was awarded towards loss of income. He sustained fracture to temporal bone and serious head injury. The disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, Govt. Medical College Hospital, Kottayam was not considered by the Tribunal. In the circumstance, I.A No.1518/2016 is allowed and the disability certificate is marked as Ext.X2.
MACA.No. 1056 of 2016
6
Generally in practical terms it is found that discretion vested in assessment has to be on the basis of injury sustained to the victim and also on the nature of evidence in that case. The injured is a BA degree holder earning Rs.5,000/- per month by taking tuition classes. In the absence of any contra evidence and in view of Syed Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd (2014 (2) SCC 735), his income is taken as Rs.5,000/- for month. Ext.X2 disability certificate shows 10% disability. Hence, following amount is awarded as enhanced compensation. Loss of income for six months is Rs.30,000/-. For pain and suffering additional 10,000/-, for loss of amenities another Rs.20,000/-, for extra nourishment another Rs.3,000/- are awarded. For permanent disability Rs.5,000x12x18x10/100=Rs.1,08,000/-. The appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.1,71,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy One Thousand only) with 9% interest from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost in addition to the award amount. The insurer is directed to satisfy the award within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which it will carry 12% interest from the date of default. The appellant is
MACA.No. 1056 of 2016
7
not entitled to get interest for the period of 151 days in filing
the appeal.
This appeal is disposed of, as above.
Sd/-
P.D.RAJAN JUDGE
bng/12.10.18
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the income of the injured person as a tuition teacher and the disability certificate awarded.
Whether the compensation awarded is just and adequate considering the nature of injuries and loss of amenities.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Yadava Kumar v. D.M. National Insurance Co. Ltd.Explained¶26
Yadava Kumar v. D.M. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010 (8) SCALE 567)
Mrs. Helen C. Rebello and Ors. v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. and Anr.Explained¶30
Mrs. Helen C. Rebello and Ors. v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. and Anr. MANU/SC/0621/1998: AIR 1998 SC 3191 · Who else cites this
Hardeo Kaur and Ors. v. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation and Anr.Explained¶34
Hardeo Kaur and Ors. v. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation and Anr. MANU/SC/0235/1992: (1992) 2 SCC 567 · Who else cites this
Syed Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company LtdRelied on¶44
Syed Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd (2014 (2) SCC 735) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Christy Kuruvila @ Christy
Tijo K. Baby
Hameed Kunju
The Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Ltd, Kottayam
P. D. Rajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
