Allowed

Ranjeev K.R. v. Noorudeen P.A.

Kerala HC7 Mar 2023MACA/996/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award, the Court enhanced compensation by correcting the notional income from Rs.6,000 to Rs.8,500/month and applying a 40% enhancement for future prospects due to 100% functional disability. The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.12,84,400/- awarded with interest at 8.5% p.a. to be deposited by the insurer within two months.

Ranjeev K.R. Vs Noorudeen P.A. — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 996 OF 2014

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 543/2012 OF MOTOR

¶7

ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶9

RANJEEV K.R. KARIMPARAMBIL (H), KILIROOR NORTH P.O, KOTTAYAM BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 NOORUDEEN P.A. PUTHENCHIRAYIL (H), CHENGALAM SOUTH P.O, KOTTAYAM 685001

¶12

2 JIJO ULAHANNAN ARUNOOTIMANGALAM (H), KANJIRAM P.O, KOTTAYAM 685001

¶13

3 THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD KOTTAYAM 685001 BY ADV SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA

¶14

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

MACA No.996 of 2014

SOPHY THOMAS, J.

MACA No.996 of 2014

Dated this the 7^th day of March, 2023

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The claimant in OP(MV) No.543 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, is the appellant herein. He is impugning the award, on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.

¶22

On 04.02.2012 at about 7 a.m, while the appellant was riding a motorcycle through Kottayam-Kumarakam road, he was knocked down by a tippler lorry bearing registration No.KL 05/Y-2635 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner. He sustained severe injuries and he was admitted and treated in Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. He was a 25 year old bachelor permanently employed as a Driver, earning monthly income of Rs.13,000/-. Due to the accident, he became permanently disabled. He approached the

¶23

MACA No.996 of 2014

¶24

¶25

Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.50 lakh. But, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.23,91,500/-. Hence this appeal.

¶26

2^nd respondent was the driver of the offending lorry,

¶27

1^st respondent was its owner and 3^rd respondent was its insurer. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. The 3^rd respondent/insurer admitted the policy and the accident.

¶28

Before the Tribunal, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A13 and X1 were marked.

¶29

Let us see whether any interference is warranted in the impugned award.

¶30

Heard Sri.G.Sreekumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt.P.K Santhamma, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶31

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellant contended that, the appellant is challenging the notional income taken by the Tribunal as Rs.6,000/- and also non consideration of future prospects of the appellant, even though the Tribunal accepted his functional disability as 100%. He is not disputing the amount awarded

¶32

MACA No.996 of 2014

¶33

¶34

under any other heads.

¶35

Though the appellant claimed monthly income of Rs.13,000/- as a Driver based on Ext.A13 income certificate issued by PW1, the Tribunal found that the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.A13 document issued by him were not reliable. But, at the same time, the Tribunal found that the appellant was having driving licence and badge for driving both transport and non-transport vehicles. Accepting his profession as a Driver, the Tribunal fixed his notional income @ Rs.6,000/- per month. According to the appellant, it was on the lower side. He would rely upon the decision Ramchandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company

¶36

Limited (AIR 2011 SC 2951) to say that, in the year 2012, even a coolie was eligible to get his notional income fixed @ Rs.8,500/-. Relying on that decision, the appellant also was eligible to get his notional income fixed @ Rs.8,500/-. So, this Court is inclined to fix his notional income @ Rs.8,500/-.

¶37

The Tribunal assessed loss of earning for four months consequential to the injuries the appellant had suffered. @

¶38

MACA No.996 of 2014

¶39

¶40

Rs.8,500/- per month, he was eligible to get Rs.34,000/under the head 'loss of earning'. Since he was already paid Rs.24,000/-, he is eligible to get the balance Rs.10,000/- as enhanced compensation.

¶41

Coming to the compensation for permanent disability, the Tribunal assessed 100% functional disability, though as per Ext.X1 disability certificate, he had suffered 70% disability only. He was paralysed below the hip and unable to sit without support. Since he was a driver by profession, the 70% disability resulted in 100% functional disability.

¶42

The insurer is not disputing the fact that, the appellant is not able to continue his driving profession because of the injuries and the disability suffered due to the accident. We have fixed his notional income at Rs.8,500/-. Since he was a 25 year old driver doing private job, as per the decision National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (AIR 2017 SC 5157), he was eligible to get 40% enhancement towards future prospects, as he had suffered

¶43

MACA No.996 of 2014

¶44

¶45

100% functional disability. So, his monthly income could have been fixed as Rs.11,900/-, for assessing compensation for permanent disability. The multiplier applicable was 18, as he was aged only 25. So, the compensation for loss of earning capacity could have been calculated as Rs.25,70,400/(11900x12x18). Since he was already paid Rs.12,96,000/under the head 'loss of earning capacity', he is eligible to get the balance amount of Rs.12,74,400/- under that head.

¶46

The compensation awarded under other heads are not under challenge.

¶47

Head of claim	Amount awarded by the Tribunal	Amount awarded in appeal	Difference to be drawn as enhanced compensation
Loss of earning	Rs.24,000/-	Rs.34,000/-	Rs.10,000/-
Loss of earning capacity	Rs.12,96,000/-	Rs.25,70,400/-	Rs.12,74,400/-
Total	Rs.13,20,000/-	Rs.26,04,400/-	Rs.12,84,400/-

¶48

In the result, the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.12,84,400/- (10000+1274400).

¶49

The 3^rd respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation in the Bank Account of the appellant

¶50

MACA No.996 of 2014 7

¶51

with interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation (excluding 85 days of delay in filing the appeal) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The deposit must be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06/09/2019 and clarified in O.M.No.D1/62475/2016 dated 07/11/2019 after deducting the liabilities, if any, of the appellant towards Tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund.

¶52

This appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE

¶55

smp

Ranjeev K.R. v. Noorudeen P.A.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeev K.R. v. Noorudeen P.A.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joy K.D. Vs Jibin Jacob K.J

Suja @ Johna Suja Vs Jibin Jacob K.J.

N.M. Mathukutty Vs Suresh.K.K

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Susheela

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs P.K.Velayudhan

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gopakumar