Allowed

E.K.Raveendran v. K.S.R.T.C

Kerala HC2 Dec 2021MACA/3339/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident claim appeal, the court enhanced the compensation awarded to a bus conductor injured while on duty. It held that permanent disability compensation includes loss of amenities distinct from loss of earning capacity and increased awards for loss of amenities and personal injury notwithstanding the appellant retained employment.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.3,50,900 awarded with interest at 9% per annum from date of filing of claim.

E.K.Raveendran Vs K.S.R.T.C — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2021/ 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

MACA NO. 3339 OF 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 758/2009 OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR/ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

¶7

THRISSUR

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶9

E.K.RAVEENDRAN S/O. KOCHAPPAN, KSRTC BUS CONDUCTOR, ERINCHERY HOUSE, THAYAMKULANGARA P.O., CHERPU, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 K.S.R.T.C REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

2 GOPALAKRISHNAN S/O. RAMAN NAIR, AMBAKKAT HOUSE, NEAR PULLAZHI, KERALA LAKSHMI MILL, DIVISION-45 OF THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 012.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM) SC, KSRTC SRI.JOHN MATHEW, ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.9.2021, THE COURT ON 02.12.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

M.A.C.A. No.3339/2016

¶17

¶18

T.R. RAVI, J.

¶19

-------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.3339 of 2016

¶20

Dated this the 2^nd day of December, 2021

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The appellant, employed as a conductor under the 1^st respondent, was injured in a motor accident on 29.12.2007 in the course of his duty. The bus in which he was travelling collided with a container lorry, resulting in serious injuries. He was taken to Lakeshore Hospital, Ernakulam, from where he was shifted to Medical College Hospital, Thrissur. He was treated as an inpatient for 55 days. In the course of the treatment his left foot was amputated at mid-tarsal region. The appellant was 47 years at the time of the accident. A claim was preferred before the Tribunal and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,62,448/- as compensation. The appeal has been filed claiming enhancement of the compensation awarded.

¶23

2 . Heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for

¶24

the 1 st respondent.

¶25

The appellant was on leave for 18 months and 2 days. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.87,623/- towards loss of earnings for the period. As per Exhibit A9 the appellant has suffered 50%

¶26

M.A.C.A. No.3339/2016

¶27

¶28

disability. Since the appellant did not lose his job, the Tribunal found that he is not entitled to any amount towards compensation for permanent disability. The above finding is challenged. The counsel for the appellant contends that the compensation for permanent disability and the compensation for loss of earning capacity are two different aspects and that going by the binding precedents, the loss of earning capacity is only one ingredient of the loss caused by a permanent disability .(See Oriental Insurance Co. Ltc. v. Hariprasad reported in (2005 (4) KLT 977), Manickan v. Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. reported in (2013 (3) KLT 248), Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in [2012 (4) KLT SN 154] and Rajkumar v. Ajaykumar reported in (2011 (1) KLT 620).

¶29

4 . On the basis of the above principles, the counsel for the appellant claims that along with the monthly income, additional amount should be added towards future prospects and applying the multiplier-multiplicand method, the compensation towards permanent disability has to be arrived at. It is also contended that the amounts awarded towards pain and suffering and disfigurement are very low and amount should have been awarded towards future medical expenses since the appellant would require

¶30

M.A.C.A. No.3339/2016

¶31

¶32

specialised footwear after amputation.

¶33

5 . The counsel for the 1 st respondent submits that the 1 st respondent who is owner of the vehicle is also the employer of the appellant and the appellant has been receiving his entire pay and allowances including all future increases. It is also submitted that in order to compensate the loss caused by permanent disability, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2 lakhs towards loss of amenities. It is hence submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal does not require any modification.

¶34

6 . The injured has to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed, but for the accident and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or he could have earned. (See

¶35

C.K.Subramonia Iyer v. T.Kunhikuttan Nair [AIR 1970 SC

¶36

376] . It is settled law that compensation for permanent disability is not the same as loss of future earning capacity, but something more. In a case where the injured is not in a permanent job, the multiplier method along with the notional monthly income and the percentage of disability can be helpful to arrive at the compensation for permanent disability to some extent. However, in cases where the injured is having a job and is not suffering the

¶37

M.A.C.A. No.3339/2016

¶38

¶39

loss of earning as such, except in such cases where his promotional chances are affected by the injury, there is a necessity to compensate the other losses that are caused due to the permanent disability apart from the earning aspect. No Thumb Rule can be adopted for arriving at such a compensation. There is always an element of approximation.

¶40

7 . In the case on hand, let us assume a case where the injured was not on a permanent job. Going by Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd.,

¶41

reported in [AIR 2011 SC 2951] , a notional income of Rs.6,000/per month would have been adopted. Adding 25% towards future prospects an income of Rs.7,500/- per month would have been adopted for finding the compensation for permanent disability assessed at 50%. A multiplier of 13 would have been applied for a person aged 47. The amount payable following the above inputs would be Rs.5,85,000/- (7500x12x13x50%). As a matter of fact, the appellant had continued in his employment and received all the monetary benefits. Hence there is no necessity to compensate him for any loss of future income. The only question is whether the payment of the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of amenities on account of the permanent disability suffered by him, is just and fair

¶42

M.A.C.A. No.3339/2016

¶43

¶44

compensation. Even otherwise, the appellant is entitled to compensation under loss of amenities, particularly since his foot had to be amputated due to the accident. I am of the opinion that a sum of Rs.50,000/- has to be awarded towards loss of amenities in life. So also, the amount awarded towards pain and sufferings and disfigurement have to be increased to Rs.50,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively, as claimed. Regarding the compensation for permanent disability sans the loss of earning capacity, taking the age of retirement as 56 years, I am of the opinion that it would be just and fair to adopt the multiplier of 9 applicable to the case of person of age 56 to 60 and the monthly income that was being earned at the time of the accident without any increase, for arriving the just compensation for the period including post retirement. The appellant is hence awarded a sum of Rs.2,61,900/- (4850x12x9x50%) under the head compensation for permanent disability excluding the loss of earning capacity.

¶45

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.3,50,900/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand Nine Hundred only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition (04.04.2009) till the date of realisation, with proportionate costs.

¶46

M.A.C.A. No.3339/2016

¶47

¶48

The 1 st respondent shall deposit the additional compensation

¶49

granted in this appeal along with the interest and proportionate costs, before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after deducting any amount to which the appellant is liable towards balance court fee and legal benefit fund. The disbursement of the compensation to the appellants shall be in accordance with law.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

T.R. RAVI JUDGE

¶52

dsn

E.K.Raveendran v. K.S.R.T.C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.K.Raveendran v. K.S.R.T.C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sobin Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Sijo

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Sobin

K.v.Biju Vs the Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sindhu

Shahad.P., Vs the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Kerala