This Motor Accident Claims Appeal challenged the Tribunal's award on monthly income and disability percentage. The Court upheld the Tribunal's fixation of income and disability at 80% and dismissed the appeal.
The appeal is dismissed and the impugned award dated 05.07.2019 is maintained.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1945
MACA NO. 34 OF 2022
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 05.07.2019 IN O.P(M.V)NO.2084/2017 OF
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
CITADEL ARCADE, R C ROAD, TAGORE CENTENARY HALL,
KOZHIKODE NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, LEGAL-CLAIMS,
REGIONAL OFFICE, VISHNU BUILDING, K.P.VALLON ROAD,
KADAVANTHRA P.O, KOCHI-682 020.
BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
BABU, S/O BALAN,
AGED 54 YEARS, KANDAPPATTIL MEETHAL HOUSE, POONATH P.O,
KOZHIKODE, PIN-673614.
(THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE ABOVE ORIGINAL PETITION IS
THE OWNER-CUM -DRIVER OF THE INSURED VEHICLE. AS NO
RELIEFS ARE CLAIMED AGAINST HIM IN THIS APPEAL ALSO, HE
IS NOT MADE A PARTY.)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 14.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.34 of 2022
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 14th day of December, 2023
The appeal on hand is originated from an award passed by Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on 05.07.2019 in O.P.(M.V.) No.2084/2017. The appellant is the 2nd respondent, who was the insurer of the offending Car bearing Registration No.KL-10-T-6435 before the Tribunal in the Original Petition. The quantum of compensation stood awarded by the Tribunal is under challenge.
M.A.C.A.No.34 of 2022
3
awarded by it was ₹16,06,700/-. 2nd respondent/insurer was directed to deposit the award amount arrived at as compensation with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Petition till the date of realisation alongwith proportionate costs. The amount was directed to be deposited within 30 days from the date on which the impugned award was passed.
M.A.C.A.No.34 of 2022
4
his job and monthly income. According to him, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed ₹12,000/- as the monthly income in the case on hand, in the absence of any evidence to substantiate. The learned counsel contended furthermore that though the permanent disability of the petitioner was assessed by a Medical Board as 70% and issued Ext.C1 certifying that, the Tribunal took 80% as the disability and compensation was calculated on it’s basis. According to him, the Tribunal is highly unjustified in taking the percentage of disability as 80% when it stood established from Ext.C1 issued by the Medical Board that the petitioner had only 70% disability. According to him, neither the petitioner nor any of the doctors who were members of the Medical Board was examined before the Tribunal. Accordingly the learned counsel seeks for modification of the impugned award by reducing it.
5
M.A.C.A.No.34 of 2022
M.A.C.A.No.34 of 2022
6
tetraplegic condition. It was further certified by the Medical Board that he has also urinary dysfunction. Therefore judicial notice can very well be taken that the petitioner’s four limbs were paralysed and he was not in a position to move from the bed. In the impact, he may not be in a position to attend the job as a painter as claimed by him or any other job. In that context after taking judicial notice, the Tribunal had fixed 80% as the occupational disability of the petitioner and compensation was calculated on its basis.
M.A.C.A.No.34 of 2022
7
earning power and since the Tribunal confined it’s consideration to 80% only, it appears reasonable to maintain the compensation stood awarded by the Tribunal under other heads.
Appeal fails for the reasons and is dismissed. The impugned award is maintained.
MARY JOSEPH JUDGE
NAB
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal acted wrongly in fixing monthly income at 12%.
Whether the Tribunal erred in fixing disability at 80% despite Medical Board certifying 70%.
Whether the compensation awarded should be enhanced or reduced.
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
Babu
Mary Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court