Partly allowed

Subramannian v. the Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd

Kerala HC13 Jul 2022MACA/2206/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's appeal in part, re-fixing monthly income at Rs.7,840/- based on Ramachandrappa guidelines and enhancing total compensation by Rs.3,78,976/- for loss of earnings, permanent disability, bystander expenses, and loss of amenities, with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.3,78,976/- with 9% interest; liability to deposit within two months.

Subramannian Vs the Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 22ND ASHADHA,

¶5

1944

¶6

MACA NO. 2206 OF 2015

¶7

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 26.2.2014 IN OPMV 223/2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL TIRUR

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶9

SUBRAMANNIAN

¶10

PALAKKOTT HOUSE, AZHINNILLAM PO, NOW RESIDING AT FEMINA QUARTERS, SPINNIN MILL, CHELEMORE PO, MALAPPURAM

¶11

BY ADV SRI.E.NARAYANAN

¶12

RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶13

THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD ADITYA TOWERS, THEVAKKARA ROAD, OPP. RTO, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR 673003

¶14

BY ADV SRI.K.B.RAMANAND

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

M.A.C.A. No.2206 OF 2015

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur in O.P.(MV) No.223/2014. The parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as petitioner and respondents in accordance with their status in O.P.M.V.

¶20

Heard Sri. E.Narayanan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.B.Ramanand, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.

¶21

According to the petitioner, on 27.8.2011 at about 8.30 a.m., while he was doing traffic duty in front of Calicut Airport, a car bearing registration No. KL-58-E-8805 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the petitioner and he suffered serious injuries. The petitioner was a security guard and was aged 44 years at the time of the accident. He was hospitalised for ten days and his right leg was amputated above the knee. As per Ext.A7 disability certificate, the Medical Board has assessed

¶22

M.A.C.A. No.2206 OF 2015

¶23

¶24

the whole body disability of the petitioner as 80%. The petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.25 lakhs as compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident.

¶25

The 1^st respondent, the owner cum driver of the car, was set ex parte before the Tribunal. The 2^nd respondent Insurance Company filed a written statement admitting that the vehicle was covered by a valid policy of insurance at the time of the accident. However, they contended that the accident happened due to the negligence of the petitioner and that the amount of compensation claimed is excessive.

¶26

The Tribunal found that the accident happened due

¶27

to the negligence of the 1^st respondent and awarded an amount of Rs.10,05,200/- as compensation with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate costs.

¶28

The split up of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is reproduced hereunder:

¶29

M.A.C.A. No.2206 OF 2015

¶30

¶31

Sl.No.	Head of claim	Amt.Claimed	Amt.awarded
1.	Loss of earning (Total)	5,20,000	72000
2.	Loss of earning (Partial)	NIL	NIL
3.	Medical, miscellaneous & bystander expenses	600000	10402
4.	Future treatment	NIL	NIL
5.	Bystanders expenses	10000	3000
6.	Transportation expenses	15000	5000
7.	Extra nourishment	30000	15000
8.	Damage to clothing, etc.	5000	1000
9.	Pain and suffering	500000	100000
10	Loss of dependency	NIL	NIL
11	Loss of consortium	NIL	NIL
12.	Loss of love and affection	NIL	NIL
13.	Loss of estate	NIL	NIL
14.	Compensation towards permanent disability & loss of earning capacity	500000	748800
15.	Compensation for loss of amenities , inconvenience etc	200000	50000
16.	Any other heads:- Loss of earning power	300000	NIL
	Funeral expenses	NIL	NIL
	Total	26,80,000
	Claim limited to Rounded to	2500000	10,05,202 1005200

¶32

M.A.C.A. No.2206 OF 2015

¶33

¶34

Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the

¶35

compensation, the petitioner has preferred this appeal.

¶36

According to the petitioner, going by Ext.A6 salary certificate, the Tribunal ought to have taken his monthly income as Rs.7,840/-. The Tribunal did not accept Ext.P6 salary certificate on the ground that the same was not proved. Accordingly, the Tribunal took the notional monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.6,000/-. In Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (2011 (13 SCC) 236), the Apex Court has fixed the notional monthly income of a casual labourer in the year 2004 as Rs.4,500/-. Therefore, as per the guidelines issued in Ramachandrappa (supra), the notional income of the petitioner who was a security guard should be taken as Rs.8,000/-. Therefore, I re-fix the monthly income of the petitioner for the purpose of assessment of compensation as Rs.7,840/- as claimed by him in the petition.

¶37

An amount of Rs.72,000/- has been awarded

¶38

M.A.C.A. No.2206 OF 2015

¶39

¶40

under the head loss of earnings. The Tribunal found that the petitioner was incapable of doing any work for a period of one year. Since I have re-fixed the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.7,840/-, the compensation for loss of earnings is recalculated as Rs.94,080/- (7840x12 months) and the petitioner is entitled for an enhanced amount of Rs.22,080/- under the said head.

¶41

The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.7,48,800/as compensation for permanent disability/loss of earning capacity taking the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.6,000/-. Since the petitioner was aged 44 years at the time of the accident, the multiplier to be adopted is ‘14’. With the re-fixed monthly income and applying the multiplier of ‘14’, the compensation for permanent disability/ loss of earning capacity is assessed as Rs.10,53,696/-/(7840x12x14x80/100) and the petitioner is awarded an amount of Rs.3,04,896/- (10,53,696-7,48,800)

¶42

additionally under the said head.

¶43

M.A.C.A. No.2206 OF 2015

¶44

¶45

It has come out in evidence that the petitioner was hospitalised for ten days. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,000/- as bystander’s expenses. I am inclined to grant an amount of Rs.5,000/- @ Rs.500/- per day. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for an enhanced amount of Rs.2,000 /- (5000-3000) under the said head.

¶46

The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for loss of amenities, inconvenience etc. Since the right leg of the petitioner has been amputated above the knee, his movement would be curtailed and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- will be just and reasonable compensation under the said head. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.50,000/- more under the head loss of amenities, inconvenience etc.

¶47

The compensation awarded under the other heads appears to be just and reasonable and the same does not warrant any interference.

¶48

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The petitioner is entitled for an enhanced compensation of

¶49

M.A.C.A. No.2206 OF 2015

¶50

¶51

Rs.3,78,976/- (Rs.22,080 + Rs.3,04,896 + Rs.2,000+ Rs.50,000) with 9% interest per annum from the date of the petition till realisation with proportionate costs. The 2^nd respondent Insurance Company shall deposit the said amount with interest and proportionate costs before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶54

al/-+

¶55

M.A.C.A.No.2206 of 2015

¶56

This Court doth order and decree that the respondent herein/2nd respondent do pay the appellant herein/petitioner a sum of I 5,451/- (Rupees Five thousand four hundred and fifty one only) being his proportionate costein this appeal.

¶57

Memal of costs for the a|]pellant Court Fee paid : I 100/Stamp on Vakalath : I 1®/Advocate's Fee : I 21,348/-(Certified) Cost incurred in getting L.C judgment and decree : I 19/Petition Fee : I 20/process Fee : I 5/.

¶58

Total

¶59

I 21'5®2/-

¶60

Proportionate costs for the appellant in this appeal

¶61

I 5,451/- (Rupees Five thousand four hundred and fifty one only)

¶62

Joint Regis
Signed On:
+pr.
cho. \0. cfroAi
„lxp(„

Subramannian v. the Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subramannian v. the Reliance General Insurance Co.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

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Revathi

P P Narayanan Nambiar Vs Taliparamba Municipality

Immaculate Heart of Mary Church Vs State of Kerala

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Sujatha

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Manoj

Manoj Vs Abdul Nawab