Allowed

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd v. C.a.Ravi

Kerala HC7 Apr 2022MACA/2466/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court enhanced compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in an appeal filed by an injured government school teacher. The Court fixed the monthly income at half of the salary on the date of the accident to account for future earning loss post-retirement amidst 90% whole body disability.

What did the court decide?

Claimant allowed to realize enhanced compensation of Rs.8,09,950/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition.

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd Vs C.a.Ravi — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 2466 OF 2014

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1574/2009 DATED 25.6.14 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PERUMBAVOOR

¶7

APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶8

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM BY ADVS. SMT.K.S.SANTHI SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:

¶10

C.A.RAVI S/O ANCHERAN, CHEMBIYETHIL HOUSE, VADAVUKODE, PUTHENCRUZ, DISABLED REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE MARY, W/O C.A.RAVI, CHEMBIYETHIL HOUSE, VADAVUKODE, PUTHENCRUZ, PIIN - 682 308.

¶11

SRI. K.S SANTHI-RESPONDENT

¶12

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2022 ALONG WITH M.A.C.A.NO.3201 OF 2014, THE COURT ON 07.04.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

M.A.C.A.No.2466/2014 &

¶14

¶15

3201/2014

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA

¶19

THURSDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1944

¶20

MACA NO. 3201 OF 2014

¶21

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 25.06.2014 IN OPMV 1574/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,PERUMBAVOOR

¶22

APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN O.P.(M.V) 1574 OF 2009:

¶23

C.A.RAVI AGED 57 YEARS S/O.ANCHERAN, CHEMBIYETHIL HOUSE, VADAVUKODE, PUTHENKRUZ, DISABLED REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE MARY, W/O.C.A.RAVI, CHEMBIYETHIL HOUSE, VADAVUKODE, PUTHENCRUZ. BY ADVS. SRI.REJI GEORGE SMT.ANUPAMA JOHNY SRI.BINOY DAVIS SRI.UMESH.N.PAI

¶24

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.3 IN O.P.(M.V).1574 OF 2009:

¶25

M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. XL/3599, IVTH ELIZABETH ALEXANDER MEMORIAL BUILDING SHANMUGHAM ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, COCHIN. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN SMT.K.S.SANTHI

¶26

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2022 ALONG WITH M.A.C.A.NO.2466 OF 2014, THE COURT ON 07.04.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

M.A.C.A.No.2466/2014 & 3201/2014

¶28

¶29

M.R.ANITHA, J ****************** M.A.C.A.No.2466 of 2014 & M.A.C.A.No.3201 of 2014

¶30

----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 7^th day of April, 2022

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

These appeals are filed against the award passed in O.P. (MV) No.1574/2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. M.A.C.A.No.2466/2014 has been filed by the third respondent/insurer and M.A.C.A.No.3201/2014 has been filed by the claimant in the said O.P.(M.V) (hereinafter be referred as 'the claimant').

¶33

The claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') out of the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor accident occurred on 16.06.2009 at 10.00 a.m at Pulinchode in Aluva-Ernakulam N.H due to hit by car driven by the second respondent bearing

¶34

M.A.C.A.No.2466/2014 & 4

¶35

3201/2014

¶36

Reg.No.KL-41/A-8527. Total claim of Rs.32,96,000/- was made which was limited to Rs.30,00,000/-.

¶37

The first respondent is the owner of the car and the third respondent is the insurer (Parties would be referred as per their status before the Tribunal). It is alleged that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent.

¶38

Before the Tribunal, first and second respondents remained ex parte and third respondent alone contested the case by filing written statement. The policy coverage with respect to the offending vehicle has been admitted. But the rashness and negligence on the part of the second respondent is denied. PW1 to PW3 were examined, Exts.A1 to A6 series and Ext.X1 were marked from the side of the claimant. Ext.B1 was marked from the side of the third respondent/insurer.

¶39

The Tribunal, on evaluating the facts and circumstances and evidence adduced, awarded compensation of Rs.23,53,501/-. 2^nd respondent was held responsible for the accident.

¶40

M.A.C.A.No.2466/2014 & 5

¶41

3201/2014

¶42

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation

¶43

awarded, the claimant and aggrieved by the award passed, the third respondent/insurer approached this Court in different appeals. Since both appeals arose out of the same award, both appeals were heard together and a common judgment is passed.

¶44

Lower court records were called for. Heard learned counsel for the claimant as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent/insurer.

¶45

According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.24,014/-, since the claimant was getting a monthly salary of Rs.12,000/- at the time of accident. The award of entire salary that would have been received till retirement is also wrong. The compensation awarded towards attendant expenses as well as permanent disability is incorrect. It is also contended that the amount of compensation awarded towards pain and suffering as well as amounts under other heads are also excessive.

¶46

M.A.C.A.No.2466/2014 & 6

¶47

3201/2014

¶48

Learned counsel for the claimant, on the other hand,

¶49

would contend that Tribunal went wrong in fixing the notional income of Rs.3,500/- alone to assess the disability since the claimant sustained 90% permanent disability as certified by the Medical Board. It is also her contention that compensation awarded towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities etc. are very low considering to the grievous injuries, period of treatment and various procedures of treatment undergone by the claimant who sustained 90% permanent whole body disability. Hence she seeks for enhancement of compensation on the head of permanent disability, loss of amenities as well as pain and suffering.

¶50

From the above, points emerge for consideration are:

¶51

(1) Whether the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the monthly

¶52

income for award of loss of earning as per the revised scale which came into effect in 2012.

¶53

(2) Whether the multiplicand adopted by the Tribunal for assessing permanent disability is correct.

¶54

M.A.C.A.No.2466/2014 &

¶55

¶56

3201/2014

¶57

(3) Whether the claimant is entitled for enhanced

¶58

compensation under the head pain and suffering as well as loss of amenities.

¶59

Point No.1: Claimant produced Exts.A1 to A3 series and Exts.A5 to A7 to prove the income. Claimant had been working as Headmaster of Government U.P. School, Kuttikkattukad, Eloor. PW2 has been working as Headmistress of the said School from 08.05.2010 onwards. She produced Ext.A1 salary statement of the claimant for the period from 01.07.2009 to 31.05.2012 as per which the basic pay of the claimant in June, 2009 is Rs.11,910/-, D.A Rs.6551/-, HRA Rs.150/-. The revised basic pay of Rs.22,360/- came into effect with effect from 01.05.2009. Ext.A2 is the DA arrear statement marked through

¶60

her. Ext.A5 is the attested copy of the acquittance role of the claimant which would show that the salary paid to the claimant as on 03.07.2009 is Rs.10,971/-. Ext.A6 is the attested copy of the statement of fixation of pay in the revised pay scale as per G.O.(P) No.85/2011/Fin dated 26.02.2011 which would show that

¶61

his existing scale of pay (in full) is Rs.9590-240-10790-280-

¶62

M.A.C.A.No.2466/2014 & 8

¶63

3201/2014

¶64

11910-340-13610-380-16650. The revised scale of pay (in full) as on the date of accident i.e. 01.07.2009 is Rs.18740-50021240-560-24040-620-27140-680-29860-750-32860-820-33680

¶65

in which the basic pay in the existing scale of pay including the increments/stagnation increments on the date of change over to the revised scale is shown as Rs.11,910/-. Ext.A7 is the attested copy of the last pay certificate of the claimant which would prove that in June 2009 he had drawn a total salary of Rs.18,611/-. It would also show that the pay has been fixed at Rs.22,360/- in the revised scale of Rs.18,740-33680 with effect from 01.07.2009 as per order No.B/127/12/L Dis dated 06.02.2012 by AEO, Aluva. It would also show that the claimant voluntarily retired on 31.05.2012 A.N.

¶66

Award passed by the Tribunal would show that the claimant is entitled to get loss of salary of Rs.32,882/- for the month of June, 2012 [basic pay Rs.23,480 + D.A Rs.8,922 (38%) + H.R.A Rs.480] and Rs.2,12,028/- (Basic pay Rs.23,480 + DA Rs.8922 (38%) + HRA Rs.480 x 6) for six months from 01.07.2012 to 31.12.2012 and Rs.1,11,783/- (Basic Pay

¶67

M.A.C.A.No.2466/2014 &

¶68

¶69

3201/2014

¶70

Rs.24,040 + DA Rs.12,741 (53%) + HRA Rs.480 x 3) for three months from 1.1.2013 to 31.3.2013 (the superannuation date). Accordingly, Tribunal found that total loss of salary the claimant is entitled to get from 01.06.2012 to 31.03.2013 is calculated as Rs.3,56,693/- [Rs.32,882 + Rs.2,12,028 + Rs.1,11,783].

¶71

According to the learned counsel for the respondent, at the time of accident, total salary of the claimant as per Ext.A7 is only Rs.18,611/- and the pay was revised only as per the order dated 06.02.2012 with effect from 01.07.2009, that is also subsequent to the accident. So, according to her, the Tribunal went wrong in granting loss of pay in the revised scale.

¶72

But, PW2, the Headmistress of the School in which the claimant had been working, categorically deposed that the claimant was working as Headmaster in the said School from 16.06.2009 and Ext.A1 salary statement has been produced. So, as per the said statement, grant of total of salary from 01.07.2009 to 31.05.2012 is Rs.9,69,710/-. Even though pay revision came subsequent to the accident when he claims compensation towards loss of pay he will be entitled to get the

¶73

M.A.C.A.No.2466/2014 &

¶74

¶75

3201/2014

¶76

amount which he would have get if in service during the period since the pay revision was made with retrospective effect from 01.07.2009.

¶77

Ext.A6, the copy of the statement of fixation of pay in the revised pay scale would go to show that his pay has been fixed at Rs.22,360/- w.e.f 01.07.2009 in the revised scale of pay of Rs.18740 vide G.O.(P) No.185/11/Fin dated 06.02.2012. That is, exactly what is stated in Ext.A1 salary statement of the claimant for the period from 01.07.2009 to 31.05.2012. So, as has been rightly found by the Tribunal, the claimant is entitled to receive the said amount and I do not find any illegality or irregularity in awarding the amount towards loss of income of Rs.9,69,710/- for the period from 01.07.2009 to 31.05.2012. An amount of Rs.3,56,693/- was arrived at by the Tribunal as the loss of pay from 01.06.2012 to 31.03.2013 based on Ext.A6 statement countersigned by the Assistant Educational Officer, Aluva which states his revised pay is Rs.22,360/-. So, no interference is called for in awarding compensation towards loss of salary. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

¶78

¶79

M.A.C.A.No.2466/2014 & 3201/2014

¶80

Point No.2: According to the learned counsel for the appellant, towards permanent disability, an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was claimed but only an amount of Rs.3,40,200/was awarded by the Tribunal. This is a case in which the claimant sustained 90% permanent whole body disability as per Ext.X1 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. It is also her contention that the multiplicand taken by the Tribunal is only Rs.3,500/- which is very low compared to the actual loss sustained by the claimant. Tribunal found that after superannuation, the monthly income of the petitioner will be reduced considerably and hence monthly income is notionally fixed as Rs.3,500/- and 9 was adopted as the multiplier considering the age group 56-60 and taking 90% disability certified by the Medical Board, a compensation of Rs.3,40,200/was awarded.

¶81

In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another : 2011(1) SCC 343 : 2010 KHC 5021 : 2011(1) KLT 620 , a two Judge Bench of the Apex Court dealt with in detail regarding the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases. In

¶82

M.A.C.A.No.2466/2014 &

¶83

¶84

3201/2014

¶85

paragraph 7 of the said judgment, the percentage of permanent disability and assessment of compensation thereof has been discussed which reads as follows:

¶86

“7. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%.”

¶87

M.A.C.A.No.2466/2014 & 13

¶88

3201/2014

¶89

In paragraph No.9 it has been discussed that the

¶90

Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of said permanent disability. The Tribunal has to consider and decide with reference to evidence (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary (ii) if the disablement is permanent whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement, (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person.

¶91

Ext.A13 is the wound certificate issued from Medical Trust Hospital and the injuries noted are bleeding from both ears, loose teeth, abrasion on the face and extremities. C.T.Scan of brain was taken and it showed subdural haematoma, subarachnoid bleed, extradural haematoma, fracture of middle cranial base.

¶92

Ext.A14 is the discharge summary issued from the Medical Trust Hospital would prove in-patient treatment from

¶93

M.A.C.A.No.2466/2014 &

¶94

¶95

3201/2014

¶96

16.06.2009 to 03.09.09 and investigations done are as follows: X-ray : C.Spine – NBI, Chest – NBI, Pelvis – NBI, D.Spine – NBI, L-S Spine – NBI, USG Abdomen : No traumatic intra-abdominal injury. Treatment given are as follows: Patient underwent Rt. FTP decompressive craniectomy with underlying SDH evacuation under GA on 16.06.2009. Patient underwent tracheostomy for better tracheobronchial toileting, and was gradually weaned off from ventilatory support. Eventually patient was decanulated from tracheostomy and strapped. PEG was done. During hospitalization patient developed Lt.corneal exposure keratitis, condom catheter reaction (ulcerations) which was aggressively treated. Ext.X1 certificate issued by the Medical Board certifies permanent disability at ninety percentage. So, the treatment records as well as injuries sustained by the claimant would prove the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant and the detailed procedures of treatment undergone by him and he had to take VRS due to the accident and the resultant injuries.

¶97

In this case, the accident happened in the year 2009 when the claimant was 52 years old. Before 10 months of his

¶98

M.A.C.A.No.2466/2014 &

¶99

¶100

3201/2014

¶101

superannuation, he took voluntary retirement from service. It is not in dispute that the loss of pay till the date has been received by the claimant. Hence multiplier of 9 was correctly taken by the Tribunal since loss of future earning would come only after the age of 55 when there is 10 months left to complete 56, when he took VRS. So, the next question is about the correctness of multiplicand taken as Rs.3,500 by the Tribunal.

¶102

According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the accident was in the year 2009 and it is evident from Ext.A1 salary statement that, as on 01.07.2009, his salary was Rs.22,360/- and from 01.07.2009 to 31.05.2011 there is a corresponding enhancement in every six months and during the period from 01.02.2011 to 30.06.2011, the total salary was Rs.28,901/-. But Ext.A5 acquittance roll would show that the amount received by him for the month of June, 2009 is Rs.10,971/-. So also, as per Ext.A7 last pay certificate, salary for the month of June, 2009 is Rs.18,611/- which also would show that the pay has been fixed at Rs.22,316/- in the revised scale w.e.f 01.07.2009 as per order dated 06.02.2012. So, obviously,

¶103

M.A.C.A.No.2466/2014 & 16

¶104

3201/2014

¶105

as on the date of accident, his total salary as per Ext.A7 is Rs.18,611/-. Subsequent pay revision cannot be taken into account for arriving at compensation towards future earning power (See Shyno M.Aykara v. Sumol Roy : 2020(4) KLT 787 ). So, deducting statutory deductions, he need not have to pay any income tax during that period (income tax slab during the year 2009 income upto Rs.1,50,000/- tax will be nil).

¶106

Learned counsel placed reliance on Raju Sebastian v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd : 2021 (5) KHC 662 : 2021

¶107

(6) KLT 136 : ILR 2022 (1) Ker,79 that was a case in which the claimant was working in Kerala Water Authority and Tribunal awarded compensation for loss of earning power taking into account the probable loss of earning capacity after retirement wherein the learned Single Judge held that when claimant continued his employment despite the injuries, the finding of the Tribunal that he has not sustained any loss of earning power during the period of his service is a probable view and the loss of earning power will arise only for the period after the retirement. The learned Single Judge, for the purpose of computation of

¶108

M.A.C.A.No.2466/2014 & 17

¶109

3201/2014

¶110

permanent disability, took the monthly income as Rs.13,200/(50% of Rs.26,400/-), half of the salary as on the date of accident. So, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the claimant is entitled to a similar fixation of income by taking the half of salary as per the revised scale, as on the date of accident, for fixation of compensation towards future loss of earning capacity.

¶111

In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar : 2011 (1) KLT 620 (SC) while exemplifying the case of amputation of hand it has been discussed that if the claimant was a clerk in Government service, the loss of his hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as clerk as he could perform clerical functions; and in that event loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter nor 60% which is actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of 'loss of future earnings' if the claimant continues in 'Government service'.

¶112

M.A.C.A.No.2466/2014 & 3201/2014

¶113

¶114

In New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Satish

¶115

Chandra Sharma and Another : Civil Appeal No.1579 of 2022 @ S.L.P (c) No.14350 of 2019 , the Apex Court in a case of injury sustained by a person in Government service, upheld the decision of the Tribunal which refused to grant any amount towards loss of earning power on the ground that the injured continued to earn the monthly salary including the increments except some allowances given due to the nature of posting. Hence, it was found that High Court failed to notice that the injury certificate did not relate to permanent disability in the entire body and had certified 75% disability in the lower limbs and he is not immobilized and can perform and undertake the daily chores without help and assistance and reduced the enhanced compensation from Rs.56,44,378/- to Rs.10,00,000/in total by adding Rs.3,79,000/- to the awarded amount of the Tribunal, that is Rs.6,21,000/-.

¶116

In this case, claimant sustained very serious injuries and undergone prolonged treatment.

¶117

M.A.C.A.No.2466/2014 &

¶118

¶119

3201/2014

¶120

I have already found that the revised scale of pay

¶121

cannot be taken into account for computation of future loss of earning power. He suffered 90% permanent whole body disability certified by the Medical Board and he will be almost in a vegetative stage and he could not do any work after the retirement and also taking into account the fact that he was a Headmaster, had this injury been not sustained to him he could have taken up other employment. Since permanent disability is at 90%, he will have to depend on others to meet his daily chores. Hence half of the income as on the date of accident would be a reasonable amount to be taken as the monthly income since he is a Government servant. Since the percentage of disability is 90%, claimant is entitled to get future prospects also. (See Pappu Deo Yadav v. Haresh Kumar : AIR 2020 SC 4424; Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Limited : 2020 ACJ 2159 ). Since 56 was taken as the age as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2010 (2) KLT 802) , claimant is entitled to get 15% enhancement of the income towards future prospects. If

¶122

M.A.C.A.No.2466/2014 &

¶123

¶124

3201/2014

¶125

that be so, the monthly income would be Rs.9,305.5/(Rs.18,611/2). After adding future prospects at 15% (Rs.9,305/x 15/100= Rs.1,395.8), the monthly income would be Rs.10,701/- [Rs.9,305.5 + 1,395.80].

¶126

In Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 (6) SCC 121) paragraph 42 which is followed in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors (2017 (4) KLT 662) , it has been held that the proper multiplier to be applied is 18 for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years and reduced by one unit for every five years, that is multiplier of 17 for 26 to 30 years, multiplier of 16 for 31 to 35 years, multiplier of 15 for 36 to 40 years, multiplier of 14 for 41 to 45 years, and multiplier of 13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, multiplier of 11 for 51 to 55 years, multiplier of 9 for 56 to 60 years, multiplier of 7 for 61 to 65 years and multiplier of 5 for 66 to 70 years. So the proper multiplier in this case is 9. Hence, towards future loss of earning power, claimant is entitled to get Rs.10,701 x 12 x 9 x 90/100 = Rs.10,40,137/-. After deducting the amount

¶127

M.A.C.A.No.2466/2014 & 21 3201/2014

¶128

already awarded by the Tribunal, the balance would be Rs.6,99,937/-.

¶129

According to the learned counsel, due to the accident, resultant injuries and the permanent disability to the extent of 90% certified by the Medical Board, the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering as Rs.1,00,000/- is very low.

¶130

Learned counsel in this context brings to my attention a two Bench decision of Apex Court in Sri.Benson George v. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd & Anr. : Civil Appeal

¶131

No.1540 of 2022 where the claimant aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru preferred the appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation in a case of grievous brain injury sustained to the claimant and he had underwent multiple surgeries and though discharged from the hospital he remained in coma and totally bedridden, even at the time of filing the claim petition. He was working as a Process Supervisor in Deutsche Bank and was earning Rs.4,59,425/- per annum. He was also aged 29 years at the time of accident. Tribunal awarded 94,37,300/- and dissatisfied with the award,

¶132

M.A.C.A.No.2466/2014 &

¶133

¶134

3201/2014

¶135

claimant approached the High Court and High Court enhanced the compensation from 94,37,300/- to Rs.1,24,94,333/- reducing interest at 6% against which the claimant approached the Apex Court. In that case, contention was raised on behalf of the respondent/insurer that based on Raj Kumar when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100%, the need to award compensation separately under the head loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life. The Apex Court, taking into account the fact that the claimant had been hospitalised for number of months and undergone MRI, CT scans and X-rays and the claimant sustained right temporal SDH, multiple hemorrhagic contusions and temporal lobe, left parieto-occipital lobe, left parietal lobe and bilateral frontal lobe, hemorrhagic contusions left thalamic region etc as well as undergone multiple surgeries and taking into account prolonged hospitalisation and medical treatment, Rs.2,00,000/- awarded under the head of pain and

¶136

M.A.C.A.No.2466/2014 &

¶137

¶138

3201/2014

¶139

suffering is enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/-. The amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded towards loss of amenities was also enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/-.

¶140

So, the dictum laid down in Sri.Benson George above referred strengthen the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that inspite of awarding compensation towards disability, compensation is also awardable towards loss of amenities. Here, the claimant suffered 90% whole body disability as certified by the Medical Board. Ext.X1 certificate would reveal that the Medical Board examined the fact that the claimant was a teacher and was not working at the time of assessing the disability. He has also undergone 80 days in-patient treatment. So, taking all those factors into account and the fact that the claimant is aged 52 years at the time of accident, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is further awarded towards pain and suffering and Rs.40,000/- is further awarded towards loss of amenities. Learned counsel would also contend that only an amount of Rs.40,000/- is awarded towards attendant expenses. Taking into account the fact that the claimant is having 90% whole body

¶141

M.A.C.A.No.2466/2014 &

¶142

¶143

3201/2014

¶144

disability, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is further awarded towards attendant expenses. So, in total, the claimant is allowed to realise Rs.8,09,937/- [Rs.6,99,937 + Rs.50,000 + Rs.40,000 + Rs.20,000] rounded to 8,09,950/-.

¶145

In the result, appellant in M.A.C.A.No.3201 of 2014 is allowed is allowed to realize enhanced compensation of Rs.8,09,950/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs nine thousand nine hundred and fifty only), which will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization from the respondent/insurer. Respondent is directed to pay the enhanced compensation granted in this appeal, together with interest deducting the liability of the claimant towards balance court fee within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶146

The disbursement of enhanced compensation to claimant shall be made taking note of the law on the point and in terms of directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06.09.2019 and clarified further in Official Memorandum No.D1-62475/2016 dated 07.11.2019. Claimant shall provide his

¶147

M.A.C.A.No.2466/2014 &

¶148

¶149

3201/2014

¶150

Bank Account details (attested copy of the relevant page of the

¶151

Bank Passbook having details of the Bank Account Number and IFSC Code of the branch) before the Tribunal, within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶152

In the result, M.A.C.A.No.2466 of 2014 stands dismissed and M.A.C.A.No.3201 of 2014 stands allowed. Parties shall bear their respective costs.

¶153

(sd/-) M.R.ANITHA, JUDGE

¶154

jsr

¶155

True Copy

¶156

P.S.To Judge

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd v. C.a.Ravi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd v. C.a.Ravi

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

Ratheeshkumar Vs Sojan Thomas

N.a.Ravindran Vs Alavikutty.P and Others

Rossy and Others Vs P.K.Balan and Others

Prince Joe Vs New India Assurance Com.Ltd.

Chandran Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Beena Sebastian Vs Managing Director