Allowed

C.P.Thomas v. Murugan

Kerala HC20 Jul 2022MACA/107/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Motor Accident Claims Appeal filed by the injured claimant. The Court obliterated the compensation for 'loss of earning power' granted by the Tribunal, ruling it impermissible under cited precedent. It enhanced compensation for loss of amenities and pain and suffering, and reworked the loss of earning capacity based on a fixed notional income of Rs.5,000/-.

What did the court decide?

Obligation of 'loss of earning power' obliterated; compensation enhanced for loss of amenities (Rs.25,000), pain and suffering (Rs.35,000), and loss of earning capacity (Rs.99,000). Total awarded incr

C.P.Thomas Vs Murugan — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 107 OF 2014

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 1160/2007 DATED 26.04.2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM

¶7

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶8

C.P.THOMAS, AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.PORINCHU @ FRANCIS, CHAKKOLA HOUSE,
PULIKKAL,VANDOOR P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT,KERALA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM
SRI.O.K.MURALEEDHARAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1MURUGAN, AGED 28 YEARS
S/O.MAGALISWAMY, G.R.IYYASAMY KOIL
STREET,KALLAPPAMPALAYAM, NEGAMAM, POLLACHI 641014,
DL.NO.TN-4119890000181, BADGE NO.56866DT.27.12.1993 TN
41DRIVER OF TN 41/R3535)

¶11

2 S.JAYAKUMAR, S/O.SAMUEL, 41 PRESS COLONY SULEESWARAN PATTIR.POLLACHI DISTRICT COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU 641014 (OWNER OF TN 41/R35351

¶12

3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED D.O.III, E.P.BUILDING, MILL ROAD,COIMBATORE 641 001 POLICY NO.170 300/31/06/01/00008132VALID FROM 23.2.2007 TO 22.2.2008 BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD P.K.MANOJKUMAR

¶13

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶14

MACA NO. 107 OF 2014

¶15

-2-

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The injured/claimant in OP(MV) No.1160/2007 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam, is the appellant herein. In this appeal, he claims enhancement of the compensation granted by the Tribunal under various heads.

¶18

Heard Sri. Sheji P.Abraham, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. P.K.Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent Insurance Company.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant fairly pointed out a defect in the judgment, which infact enured to his benefit. The Tribunal granted disability compensation at Rs.59,400/-, acting upon Ext.A26 disability certificate, whereby, the disability is seen assessed at 15%. However, the Tribunal had also granted compensation on account of loss of earning power, again a sum of Rs.59,400/-, which is precisely impermissible going by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in

¶20

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Hariprasad [2005 (4) KLT

¶21

977] . However, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that no

¶22

MACA NO. 107 OF 2014

¶23

-3-

¶24

amount has been granted under the head ‘loss of amenities’. It has been pointed out that the appellant/claimant had suffered serious injuries as taken note of by the Tribunal in paragraph No.17. He was an inpatient for a period of 17 days and he has been assessed with a disability of 15%. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that compensation on account of loss of amenities can be fixed at Rs.25,000/-.

¶25

The next ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is under the head ‘pain and sufferings’, where, Rs.25,000/is seen awarded by the Tribunal. For the same set of reasons reckoned for loss of amenities, this Court is of the view that the compensation under that head can be enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. The next ground is with respect to notional income of the appellant/claimant. As against Rs.5,000/- claimed, the Tribunal reckoned only Rs.3,000/- towards monthly income. Going by Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [2011

¶26

KHC 4675] the income pertaining to the year 2007 is Rs.6,000/-. However, the appellant/claimant had claimed only Rs.5,000/-, wherefore, this Court fixes the notional income at Rs.5,000/-. The

¶27

MACA NO. 107 OF 2014

¶28

-4-

¶29

disability compensation will be worked out accordingly.

¶30

Another ground is on account of loss of earning capacity, which has been reckoned by the Tribunal for a period of 4 months at the rate of Rs.3,000/-. The same is liable to be reworked for a period of 5 months at the rate of Rs.5,000/- for the reasons already adverted.

¶31

This MACA is thus allowed, obliterating the compensation granted under the head of ‘loss of earning power’, and granting enhancement under the heads above referred, as shown in detail in the tabular column here below.

¶32

Sl No.	Head of claim	Amount awarded by the Tribunal	Amount enhanced by this Court
1	Loss of earnings (Total)	12,000	(5000 x 5) 25,000
2	Medical miscellaneous expenses	4,16,400	4,16,400
3	By-stander expenses	3,400	3,400
4	Transportation expenses	15,000	15,000
5	Extra nourishment	3,400	3,400
6	Damage to clothing	1,000	1,000
7	Pain and suffering	25,000	35,000

¶33

MACA NO. 107 OF 2014

¶34

-5-

¶35

8	Loss/reduction in earningcapacity	59,400	Nil
9	Loss of amenities	Nil	25,000
10	Continuing or permanent physical disability	59,400	99,000 (5000 x 12 x 11 x 15/100)
	Total	5,95,000	6,23,200
Amo	unt enhanced = Rs.282	00/- (623200	– 595000)

¶36

The Insurance Company shall pay interest for the amounts awarded by the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award and for the enhanced amount, at the rate of 5% from the date of petition. If any amount has already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. Since there was a delay of 154 days in filing the appeal, the interest for the enhanced quantum shall not run for the said period as directed in order dated 23.12.2021 in C.M.A.No.1/2014 in M.A.C.A.107/2014. The claimant shall produce the details of the Bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and amount shall be transferred to the Bank account directly through NEFT/RTGS mode, within a period of one month thereafter. If the Bank account is not given within the time stipulated, it is made clear

¶37

MACA NO. 107 OF 2014

¶38

-6-

¶39

that, no interest shall run on the enhanced amount after the period stipulated by this Court. However, if the Insurance Company fails to deposit the amount, as directed, interest on the enhanced amount shall also run at the rate ordered by the Tribunal from the date of petition.

¶40

The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

¶41

 Sd/-

¶42

C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

uu 21.07.2022

C.P.Thomas v. Murugan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.P.Thomas v. Murugan

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

Jaleel Hussain Vs Kottayam Muncipality

Satheesh Kumar S. Vs the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Santhosh P.G. Vs the Tahsildar, Ranni

Sathyan Vs Jyothi Kumar

P.v.Mathew Vs Koona Sudhakar

Shahidha Vs Mani.P