Allowed

Ravi v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Kerala HC14 Sept 2020MACA/2029/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the High Court allowed the claimant's prayer for enhancement. The Court adopted the orthopaedic surgeon's assessment of 10% permanent disability, rejecting the Tribunal's reduction. The appellant's notional income was recalculated for enhancement.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced from Rs. 1,23,200 to Rs. 1,89,200 (after correction); incidental directions for payment within three months.

Ravi Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 23RD BHADRA, 1942

¶5

MACA.No.2029 OF 2017(E)

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1375/2014 DATED 15-03-2017 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , IRINJALAKUDA

¶7

APPELLANT/S:

¶8

RAVI,
S/O.VELAYUDHEN, PARAMBRA HOUSE, VETTILAPARA XIV
DESOM, ATHIRAPILLY VILLAGE, VETTILAPARA P.O,
CHALAKUDY TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.
SRI.P.V.BABY
SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
CHALAKUDY 680 307

¶12

R1 BY ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN

¶13

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
14.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

MACA.No.2029 OF 2017 2

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The appellant suffered injury while he
was traveling pillion. The bike in which the
appellant was traveling turned turtle. The bike
had a comprehensive policy and there was no
allegation of violation of terms of policy. The
appellant claims enhancement. The appellant
claimed before the Tribunal that he was a manual
labourer earning an income of Rs.18,000/- per
month. Learned counsel for the appellant
asserts that this is probable since in the year
2014, for a day's work if we compute the income
as Rs.600/- for a day, then for 30 days a manual
labourer would definitely get Rs.18,000/-.
However this is discounting the fact that a
manual labourer may not have employment in all
days.

¶17

2. A coolie was fixed with a notional
income of Rs.4,500/- per month in the year 2004,
in Ramachandrappav. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13

¶18

MACA.No.2029 OF 2017 3

¶19

SCC 236]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also
recognised the principle that there would be
incremental enhancement in the case of even
self-employed individuals in the un-organised
sector (National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay
Sethi (2017)16 SCC 680). With respect to an
unspecified job of a coolie considering the
increase in cost of living and economic
advancements over the years, it can be safely
assumed that even a coolie would be eligible for
incremental addition of at least Rs.500/- in
every subsequent year. Filial consortium can be
granted on the basis of 2018 (11) SCALE 247 =
2018(4) RCR (Civil)333 [Magma General Insurance
Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others]. Hence a coolie
would have an income of at least Rs.9,500/- per
month and the same is adopted as the notional
income of the appellant.

¶20

3. The appellant claims a disability of
10% and produced a certificate of the Orthopedic
Surgeon. The appellant suffered two injuries.

¶21

1. Multiple abrasion over limbs

¶22

MACA.No.2029 OF 2017 4

¶23

2. Fracture lateral aspect of 3rd and 4th
ribs. The fracture of the ribs was malunited and
hence there was an assessment of disability.
The orthopaedic surgeon found that there is 10%
whole body disability. The Tribunal however
held that the disability assessed by an
orthopaedic surgeon cannot be relied on since
the claim is of pulmonary disability. Hence the
Tribunal reduced the disability to 6.5%.

¶24

4. When even an orthopaedic surgeon is
found to be not capable of assessing the
pulmonary disability, it is strange that the
Tribunal took upon itself the responsibility to
assess the disability at a lower percentage.
The pulmonary disability is caused by the mal-
union of the fracture. Even an orthopaedic
surgeon would be entitled to assess such
disability. A manual labourer would hence be
affected by the disability and this Court is of
the opinion that the disability as assessed in
the medical certificate at Ext.A9 has to be
adopted. There shall be enhancement with

¶25

MACA.No.2029 OF 2017 5

¶26

respect to loss of earnings and permanent
disability.

¶27

5.Accordingly,thefollowing

¶28

enhancements are made to the award passed by the

¶29

Tribunal:

¶30

`Sl.` `No.`	`Head of Claim`	`Amount` `awarded` `by the` `Tribunal` `	`Total amount` `after` `enhancement in` `appeal` `
`1`	`Loss of earnings`	`15000`	`28500`
`2`	`Transport to hospital`	`1500`	`1500`
`3`	`Extra nourishment`	`1500`	`1500`
`4`	`Damage to clothing`	`500`	`500`
`5`	`Attendant expenses`	`3000`	`3000`
`6`	`Medical expenses`	`39400`	`39400`
`7`	`Pain and suffering`	`20000`	`20000`
`8`	`Permanent disability`	`27300`	`27300`
`9`	`Loss of amenities`	`15000`	`15000`
	`Total`	`1,23,200`	`1,36,700`

¶31

MACA would stand allowed. The payment as
per the award and the modification made herein
shall be made within three months with interest
as directed by the Tribunal @ 9% from the date
of application before the Tribunal, after
deducting the amounts already paid or deposited.

¶32

MACA.No.2029 OF 2017 6

¶33

The appellant shall produce a copy of a
cancelled cheque of the Bank Account in a
Nationalized Bank in his name, with copy of
AADHAAR or acceptable identification, before the
Tribunal within one month, with copy to the
Insurance Company. The Insurance Company shall
credit the amounts through NEFT/RTGS mode to the
said account, failing which the Tribunal shall
proceed with the recovery in accordance with
law.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

uu

¶38

14.09.2020

¶39

MACA.No.2029 OF 2017 7

¶40

The figures “27300” in row no.8 and “136700”
in the final row under the column “Total amount
after enhancement in appeal” in the table in
page no.5 of the judgment dated 14/09/2020 in
MACA No.2029/2017 is corrected as “79800” and
“189200” respectively, as per the order dated
05.04.2023inIANo.01/2023inMACA
No.2029/2017.

¶41

Sd/-
 DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Ravi v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Giji Tess Gregory Vs the State of Kerala

Sufaira Shamsudeen, Vs the State of Kerala

Nidhin George Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Arun K.V. Vs University of Calicut

Navya Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Jinesh T., Vs State of Kerala