Partly allowed

Sukumaran K.C. v. Reliance General Insurance Company

Kerala HC29 Mar 2023MACA/1331/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Motor Accident Claims Appeal, enhancing compensation for the appellant who suffered injuries in a road accident. The Court corrected the Tribunal's notional income figure to the statutory minimum and increased awards for various injury heads.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced under permanent disability, Bystander Expenses, Extra Nourishment, Pain and Suffering, and Loss of Amenities with interest at 7.5%.

Sukumaran K.C. Vs Reliance General Insurance Company — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1945

¶5

MACA NO. 1331 OF 2014

¶6

[AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 28.02.2014 IN OP(MV)NO.25/2013 ON THE
FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA]

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

SUKUMARAN K.C, AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O.CHANDRAN, KOLAKKATTUKUDIYIL HOUSE,
KARTIKULAM P.O., VAYALKARA, MANAMTHAVADY TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶11

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
KOZHIKODE. POLICY NO.NOT KNOWN,
PIN - 673 004.

¶12

BY ADV SRI.K.B.RAMANAND, SC

¶13

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 29.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶14

MACA NO. 1331 OF 2014

¶15

-2-

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This matter is of the year 2014 and has not

¶18

been admitted. However, both sides are ad idem
that it can be disposed of, after being formally
admitted, based on the undisputed evidence on
record, handed over by them across the Bar. I,
therefore, admit this Appeal and proceed to

¶19

dispose it of finally, with the consent of both
sides.

¶20

standing on the side of the road, he was knocked
down by the offending Goods Autorickshaw,
driven in a rash and negligent manner. He

¶21

suffered injuries and had to be treated,

¶22

including as an inpatient for 10 days;
whereupon, he filed OP(MV)No.25/2013 before the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Wayanad,
Kalpetta, (‘Tribunal’, for short), seeking
compensation of an amount of Rs.3,65,063/-,

¶23

MACA NO. 1331 OF 2014

¶24

limited to Rs.2,50,000/-; but which has been

¶25

allowed only to a sum of Rs.1,25,416/-. He thus
assails the compensation as being inadequate.

¶26

3.Smt.Vishnuja P.M. - learned counsel for

¶27

the appellant, argued that the learned Tribunal
has erred in fixing the notional income of her
client because, the evidence on record,
particularly Ext.A10 – Certificate issued by the

¶28

Edavaka Grama Panchayat, would establish that he
was earning a monthly income of Rs.35,021/-. She
then pointed out that, going by the medical
evidence on record, the injuries suffered by her
client are so grievous that the compensation
awarded under the heads “Bystander Expenses”,
“Extra Nourishment”, “Pain and Suffering” and
“Loss of Amenities” is extremely exiguous. She
thus prayed that this Appeal be allowed.

¶29

4.Sri.K.B.Ramanand – learned Standing

¶30

Counsel for the Insurance Company, on the other

¶31

MACA NO. 1331 OF 2014

¶32

-4-

¶33

hand, submitted that, since the accident
happened in the year 2012, the computations
adopted by the Tribunal in arriving at the
compensation are without error; adding that
since the appellant was, admittedly, working
permanently in a Grama Panchayat, the learned
Tribunal was without error in having adopted his
notional income after his retirement at the age
of 56 as Rs.5,000/- and then in adopting the
multiplier ‘9’. He thus prayed that this Appeal
be dismissed.

¶34

5.I have considered the afore rival

¶35

submissions on the touchstone of the evidence on
record – copies of which have been handed over
across the Bar by the learned counsel for the
parties with the express consent that it can be
acted upon by this Court without dispute.

¶36

6.It is without doubt that the appellant

¶37

was working as the Secretary of a Grama

¶38

MACA NO. 1331 OF 2014

¶39

-5-

¶40

Panchayat and drawing a monthly income of
Rs.35,021/-. It is also without contest that, on
account of the injuries and consequent
treatment, he had not suffered any loss of
income, except as has been awarded by the

¶41

Tribunal.

¶42

7.Obviously, therefore, the Tribunal was

¶43

without error in having reckoned the notional
income of the appellant at the age of his
retirement, namely when he attains the age of
56; and then by using the multiplier ‘9’.
However, while doing so, the learned Tribunal
ought to have been guided by the postulations in
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
namely,Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011)
13 SCC 236], which mandates that even in the
case of a person who is a ‘Coolie’ or with an
unascertainable income, in the year 2012 – when

¶44

MACA NO. 1331 OF 2014

¶45

the accident occurred – the minimum figure to be

¶46

taken is Rs.8,500/-. The Tribunal has, however,

¶47

taken the notional income to be only Rs.5,000/-

¶48

and I see no reason why the afore figure should
be denied to him. I am not considering a higher
figure than this because, it is admitted at the
Bar that the appellant would draw pension after
his retirement.

¶49

particularly Ext.A5 – Wound Certificate and

¶50

Ext.A6 – Discharge Summary show that the

¶51

appellant had suffered the following injuries:

¶52

“1. Laceration with abrasion over the right

¶53

 side of the forehead.

¶54

2.Abrasion over left foot.
3.Pain on the chest.
4.Dislocation of clavicle.” (sic)

¶55

appellant was admitted and treated as an
inpatient for 10 days and had to then be

¶56

MACA NO. 1331 OF 2014

¶57

-7-

¶58

subjected to follow-up treatment as well. I

¶59

notice that the learned Tribunal has awarded
only Rs.1,500/- under the head“Bystander
Expenses” and Rs.1,000/- under the head “Extra
Nourishment”, which are obviously at the rates
of Rs.150/- and Rs.100/- per day. Even going by
the fiscal standards of the year 2010, this is
extremely exiguous; and I propose to revise it

¶60

to be Rs.300/- and Rs.200/-, respectively.

¶61

10.Again, taking note of the grievous
injuries suffered by the appellant and the fact
that he had dislocation of clavicle, I am of the
firm view that the compensation awarded by the

¶62

Tribunal under the head “Loss of Amenities”

¶63

require to be increased marginally, at least to
the extent claimed for; while that under the
head “Pain and Suffering” to be enhanced to
Rs.25,000/-.

¶64

11.Finally, there is no dispute between the

¶65

MACA NO. 1331 OF 2014

¶66

-8-

¶67

parties as to the percentile of “Permanent
Disability” suffered by the appellant because,
it is certified to be 12% in Ext.C1 – Disability
Certificate.

¶68

In the afore circumstances, I partly allow
this Appeal in the following manner:

¶69

(a) The compensation under the head
“permanent Disability” is enhanced to

¶70

Rs.1,10,160/- (Rupees one lakh ten thousand one
hundred and sixty only), from Rs.64,800/-,

¶71

adopting the notional income of the appellant to

¶72

beRs.8,500/-andthepercentileof
“Disability” to be ‘12’ as per Ext.C1. The

¶73

multiplier adopted is ‘9’, as correctly done by
the learned Tribunal.

¶74

(b)The compensation under the head

¶75

“Bystander Expenses” is enhanced to Rs.3,000/-
(Rupees three thousand only), from Rs.1,500/-,

¶76

reckoning the per diem expenses for the same to

¶77

MACA NO. 1331 OF 2014

¶78

be Rs.300/-, for 10 days hospitalization.

¶79

(c)The compensation under the head “Extra

¶80

Nourishment” is enhanced to Rs.2,000/- (Rupees
two thousand only), from Rs.1,000/- awarded by

¶81

the Tribunal, reckoning the per diem expenses
for the same to be Rs.200/-, for 10 days
hospitalization.

¶82

and Suffering” is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees twenty five thousand only), from

¶83

Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶84

(e) The compensation under the head “Loss

¶85

of Amenities” is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
ten thousand only), from Rs.2,500/- awarded by

¶86

the Tribunal.

¶87

granted by the Tribunal will remain intact.

¶88

Consequently, theappellant will be at full

¶89

liberty to recover the compensation, as enhanced

¶90

MACA NO. 1331 OF 2014

¶91

-10-

¶92

by this Court, from the Insurance Company, along

¶93

with interest at the rate of 7.5%, as awarded by

¶94

the Tribunal, from the date of claim until it is
recovered.Hewill also be entitled to

¶95

proportionate costs on the enhanced amount as
ordered by the Tribunal.

¶96

In view of the afore, the amount as fixed

¶97

above shall be deposited by the Insurance
Company before the Tribunal, within a period of

¶98

two months from the date of receipt of a copy
this judgment.

¶99

Sd/-

¶100

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶101

JUDGE

¶102

akv

Sukumaran K.C. v. Reliance General Insurance Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukumaran K.C. v. Reliance General Insurance Company

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

Jayan a K Vs the Principal Secretary

Reshma S. Vijay Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

P.S. Sreekumar, Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Muhammed Enoli Vs Shailaja

Devasia E.K., Vs the Permanent Lok Adalath

Saneesh Kumar M, Vs the District Collector