The High Court allowed the Motor Accident Claims Appeal, increasing compensation for permanent disability based on reassessed medical findings and a revised notional income of Rs 4,500/- per month following Supreme Court precedent
Total additional compensation of Rs 4,94,700/- with interest directed to be deposited by the insurance company.
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
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1940
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 27.08.2008 IN OPMV 2506/2004 of M.A.C.T.,KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:-
JALAL, S/O. HAMZAKOYA, AGED 34 YEARS, KOOTTAYINTE PURAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM.
BY ADV.SMT.K.V.RESHMI
RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:-
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SILVER PLAZA BUILDING, I.G.ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN BY SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
DST
K. HARILAL, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. No.1217 of 2015(B)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of June, 2018
J U D G M E N T
The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.2506 of 2004 of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') , Kozhikode. The aforesaid Original Petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by him in a road traffic accident. According to him, on 08.09.2004 at about 3.30 pm, while he was travelling in a motorcycle as a pillion rider, the offending lorry driven by the 1st respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the motorcycle, as a result of which he fell down and sustained injuries. The accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
the offending lorry by the 1st respondent. He
M.A.C.A. No.1217 of 2015(B)
-: 2 :-
claimed `6,00,000/- as compensation. According to
him, the 1st respondent is the owner-cum-driver. Driver of the offending lorry is liable to pay compensation to him and the 2nd respondent Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the 1st respondent.
M.A.C.A. No.1217 of 2015(B)
-: 3 :-
and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Insurance Company.
M.A.C.A. No.1217 of 2015(B)
-: 4 :-
point to be considered is, whether the Tribunal is justified in taking 1,000/- only as the monthly notional income? According to the appellant, at the time of accident, he was a fisherman and he was getting 5,000/- per month. It is true that no evidence has been adduced to prove his claim. The petitioner was not examined in evidence also. But,
in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the Supreme Court held that for an accident occurred in the year 2004, in the absence of any evidence to prove the exact monthly income of the claimant, 3,500/-to 4,500/- can be taken as the monthly income. In the instant case also, the accident has occurred in the year 2004 and the appellant was aged 24 years only at the time of accident. Therefore, in view of the decision, `4,500/- is taken as the
M.A.C.A. No.1217 of 2015(B)
-: 5 :-
monthly income of the appellant.
when the Medical Board has reported that the appellant has 75% permanent disability only. According to the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, the degree of permanent disability has to be reduced from 95% to 75%. Though, there was no separate appeal, the respondent has right to advance arguments to sustain the award under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. Therefore, even in the absence of separate appeal, challenging the percentage of disability taken by the Tribunal, the aforesaid contention raised by the respondent can be taken into account in this appeal filed by the petitioner,
M.A.C.A. No.1217 of 2015(B)
to sustain the quantum of compensation under
challenge.
6,88,500/-[4,500 x 12 x 17 x 75/100] as compensation for 'permanent disability'. Thus, the additional compensation payable to the appellant under the head compensation for 'permanent disability' is 4,94,700/-[6,88,500 - 1,93,800].M.A.C.A. No.1217 of 2015(B)
Court finds that the medical bills do not exceed 2,00,000/- as observed by the Tribunal and the Tribunal is justified in granting 1,00,000/- only as compensation for medical expense.
M.A.C.A. No.1217 of 2015(B)
-: 8 :-
remaining portion of the impugned award would stand undisturbed and operative.
This Motor Accident Claims Appeal is allowed accordingly to the above extent. All the pending interlocutory applications will stand closed.
Sd/-
K. HARILAL, JUDGE
DST
//True copy//
P.A. To Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal is justified in taking a notional monthly income of Rs 1,000/- for the appellant who was a fisherman.
Whether the Compensation Tribunal erred in accepting 95% permanent disability degree despite the Medical Board reporting 75%.
Whether the Tribunal erred in estimating medical expenses exceeding Rs 2,00,000/- upon verification of bills.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.Followed¶36
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jalal
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
K. Harilal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court