High Court enhanced compensation awarded to a student injured in a road accident. Ruled that due to age and career impact, standard methods suffice, ordering insurer to pay additional sums for permanent disability, amenities, and loss of study.
Respondent to deposit additional Rs.60,864 along with interest at 9% per annum.
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.
M.A.C.A.No.3854/2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
SATURDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 29TH KARTHIKA,
1943
MACA NO. 3854 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 505/2012 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
JOSY PAUL AKKARA, S/O.JOY, AKKARA HOUSE, ATTARA, MOOKKANNOOR P.O., ANGAMALY.
BY ADV SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH
RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE MANAGER,
TATE AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., A501, 5TH FLOOR,BUILDING NO.4, INFINITY PARK, DINDOSHI, MALAD EAST, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400 097.
R1 BY SRI.R.AJITH KUMAR
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.3854/2016
2
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P.(MV).No.505 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. Claim petition was filed by him seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident occurred on 22.01.2012. The accident occurred when motor cycle on which the petitioner as a pillion rider, collided with a Tata Ace vehicle, driven by the 1st respondent in the claim petition. The aforesaid vehicle was insured with the respondent herein. The petitioner was a student aged 17 years at the time of the accident and it was contended that, consequent to the injuries sustained, he lost one academic year. Serious injuries were sustained to him and as compensation he has claimed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-.
M.A.C.A.No.3854/2016 3
respondent in the claim petition, who was the insurer of the motor cycle on which the petitioner was a pillion riding.
M.A.C.A.No.3854/2016 4
This appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation, as according to the appellant it is inadequate.
M.A.C.A.No.3854/2016 5
warrants. By relying upon the nature of injuries and the serious impact that may cause to the appellant in his future life, it was pointed out that, this has to be treated as an exceptional circumstance warranting a different method of computation. According to him he is aged 17 years and was pursuing his studies and nature of injuries deprived him from one year of his education.
M.A.C.A.No.3854/2016 6
circumstance. That was a case where the victim was aged 7 years and was a school going child. However, in this case, the victim is aged 17 years and he was at the crucial stage of his educational career as it is at this age, the future course of his career is often decided. In such circumstances, the injuries caused to him at that stage and loss of an academic year at that particular point of time may have a serious impact on his future life and hence in my view, the same has to be treated as exceptional circumstance warranting a different approach in the matter of computation of compensation. Hence, I am of the view that, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Master Mallikarjun (supra), a different approach can be adopted in this case.
M.A.C.A.No.3854/2016 7
has sustained certain percentage of disability, the same will affect his earning capacity when he starts earning in a near future. Therefore, it is only just and proper that he should be compensated for such loss. In such circumstances, I am of the view that, as there is no evidence available to reckon the monthly income of the appellant, the principles that has been laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735] and Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236] can be adopted, even though the said method of computation contemplated therein were in respect of persons engaged as a coolie and a vegetable vendor. In my view, the said criteria can be treated as the bench mark and amount of compensation can be fixed on the basis of the same even in respect of the non earning members as well. While computing the compensation on
M.A.C.A.No.3854/2016
8
the basis of the same, i.e., taking the monthly income as Rs.4,500/- for the year 2004 and making an addition of Rs.500/- per year for the subsequent years, the monthly income in this case can be taken as Rs.8,500/- as the accident has occurred in the year 2012. The relevant multiplier applicable is 18. Thus, by calculating the compensation for permanent disability under the head with the above criteria, the amount comes to Rs.1,35,864/[8500x12x18x7.4/100]. The Tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and hence, the balance amount receivable by the appellant is Rs.35,864/- [Rupees thirty five thousand eight hundred and sixty four only].
M.A.C.A.No.3854/2016 9
serious in nature. Considering the aforesaid aspect, I am of the view that a further amount of Rs.10,000/- is justifiable under the head loss of amenities. It was pointed out that he lost an academic year due to the injuries and consequent treatments undergone. The amount awarded under this head is Rs.25,000/-. I am of the view, in the circumstance of the case, a further sum of Rs.15,000/- can be awarded. Thus the total amount comes to Rs.60,864/- [Rupees sixty thousand eight hundred and sixty four only].
The respondent insurance company shall deposit the said amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE
DG/22.11.21
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for permanent disability was inadequate considering the petitioner's age and loss of education.
Whether the method of computation in Master Mallikarjun can be applied to a 17-year-old victim to award additional compensation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.Followed¶3
Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr. [(2014) 14 SCC 396]=[2013 ACJ 2445] · Who else cites this
Munavira v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.Distinguished¶5
Munavira v. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. [2015 (5) KHC 846]
Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance CompanyRelied on¶6
Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735] · Who else cites this
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.Relied on¶6
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236] · Who else cites this
Josy Paul Akkara
The Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Ziyad Rahman A.A.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
