Partly allowed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sam Koshy

Kerala HC16 Feb 2023MACA/65/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Motor Accident Claims Appeal was heard regarding excessive compensation under the heads of permanent disability and loss of earnings. The Court reduced the permanent disability award based on the actual disability percentage and remanded the loss of earnings issue to the Tribunal due to lack of evidence regarding salary denial.

What did the court decide?

Compensation under permanent disability revised to Rs.3,46,919/-; Original Petition remanded to Tribunal solely for reassessing compensation under loss of earnings.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sam Koshy — Insurance | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 27TH MAGHA,

¶4

¶5

MACA NO. 65 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(MV)502/2018 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PUNALUR

¶7

APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶8

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD.(BRANCH MANAGER),
PUNALUR, REP BY THE DULY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
ASST . MANAGER , REGIONAL OFFICE,
KOCHI, PIN - 682011
BY ADVS.
RAJAN P.KALIYATH
ARCHANA SATISH

¶9

RESPONDENT/CLAIM PETITIONER:

¶10

SAM KOSHY, S/O. KOSHI, AGED 34,
THATTARATHARAYIL HOUSE, VATTAKARICKAM,
THINGALKARIKAM PO., KULATHUPUZHA,
KOLLAM DITRICT, PIN - 691310
BY ADVS.
ANIL K.MUHAMED
KRISHNAKUMAR G.(K/000016/2022)
AJIN SALAM(K/001050/2022)

¶11

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

..2..

MACA.No.65/2023

JUDGMENT

The United India Insurance Company has filed this appeal impugning the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur (‘Tribunal’ for short) in OP(MV)No.502/2018, on the ground that the compensation awarded to the victim of a road accident under the heads, ‘Permanent Disability’ and ‘Loss of Earnings’ is excessive.

¶16

Sri.Rajan.P.Kaliyath – learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, pointed out that, even going by the evidence on record, the monthly income of the respondent is Rs.56,686/-, but that the Tribunal has adopted a figure of Rs.70,000/- as notional income, presumably adding to it 40% future prospects. He submitted that this was impermissible because, even going by the conclusions of the Tribunal, the respondent had only suffered 3% permanent disability. He then submitted that under the head ‘Loss of Earnings’, the Tribunal has mechanically awarded an amount of Rs.1,65,744/-, even though the respondent had conceded that he was working in a private limited company and though he had not established that he had been denied salary for three months

¶17

..3..

¶18

MACA.No.65/2023

¶19

when he was under treatment. The learned Standing Counsel, therefore, prayed that this appeal be allowed to the extent assailed.

¶20

In response, Sri.Anil.K.Muhamed – learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that his client was certainly entitled to future prospects to be added to his income, because he suffered permanent disability; and that the amount granted under the head ‘Loss of Earnings’ is reasonable, because he had suffered hospitalisation, thus being kept away from employement for three months. He thus prayed that this appeal be dismissed.

¶21

4 . I have evaluated the afore submissions on the touchstone of the various materials and evidence on record – copies of which have been handed over across the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties, with express consent that they can be acted upon by this Court without dispute.

¶22

5 . The factum of the accident or the causation of the injury to the respondent are not under dispute; and as I have seen above, all which the appellant calls into question is the quantum of compensation under the heads “permanent disability” and “loss of earnings”.

¶23

6 . As regards the “permanent disability”, I f i nd great

¶24

MACA.No.65/2023

¶25

..4..

¶26

force in the submissions of Sri.Rajan P. Kaliyath that, since, admittedly, the respondent suf f ered only 3% permanent disability, future prospects could not have been added to his income. Certainly, therefore, the adoption of Rs.70,000/- as the income for the purpose of computing compensation under this head by the Tribunal was incorrect. I, therefore, reduce it to Rs.56,686/-, which is the adjudicated monthly income in his favour.

¶27

7 . Coming to the head “loss of earnings”, again, there is force in the submissions of Sri.Rajan P.Kaliyath, because unless it was established by the respondent that he had been denied monthly salary by the Company in which he was employed for three months when he was out of work, it could not have been granted by the Tribunal. There is no evidence in this regard; and pertinently, Sri.Anil K. Muhamed – learned counsel for the appellant, prays that the matter be remanded to the Tribunal for such purpose, which is not opposed by Sri.Rajan P.Kaliyath.

¶28

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed in part, in the following manner:

¶29

(a) The compensation awarded to the respondent under the head “permanent disability” is revised to

¶30

MACA.No.65/2023

¶31

..5..

¶32

be Rs.3,46,919/-, instead of Rs.4,28,400/- as awarded by the Tribunal.

¶33

(b) The Original Petition is remanded to the Trial Court solely for the purpose of reassessing the compensation under the head “loss of earnings”; for which purpose both sides will be given necessary opportunities of being heard and for leading additional/fresh evidence. A fresh order in this regard shall be issued by the Tribunal within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; for which purpose, I direct the parties to mark appearance before it at 11 a.m., on 10.03.2023.

¶34

Consequently, the respondent will be entitled to recover the compensation, as enhanced by this Court and to be awarded by the Tribunal in terms of the afore directions on the head of “loss of earnings”, along with interest at the rate of 7% as ordered by the Tribunal, from the date of f i ling of the claim until it is recovered. The respondent will also be entitled to proportionate cost on the enhanced amount as ordered by the Tribunal before it.

¶35

MACA.No.65/2023

¶36

..6..

¶37

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal in all other

¶38

heads are conf i rmed.

¶39

Needless to say, if any amounts have already been deposited by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal, the respondent will be permitted to withdraw the same.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶42

ACR/anm

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sam Koshy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sam Koshy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.K. Vyas Vs Dr. a. Jayathilak

The Pharmacy Council of India, Vs Mgm Silver Jubilee College of Polytechnic and Pharmaceutical Sciences

The Pharmacy Council of India, Vs Cochin College of Engineering and Technology

Prakash Chandra.K.P Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Ksrtc

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs a.Nujum

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs S.S. Selva Kumar