Partly allowed

Babu Lukose v. the Divisional Manager

Kerala HC5 Jul 2024MACA/25/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a partial motor accident claim appeal, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1.66 lakh to Rs.2.85 lakh. The court recalculated damages for notional income, loss of earnings, and permanent disability based on the appellant's admitted profession as a welder, applying the method laid down in Ramachandrappa.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.1,18,800 along with interest at 7% per annum and costs awarded to the appellant; the insurance company directed to deposit the amount.

Babu Lukose Vs the Divisional Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶3

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶4

MACA NO. 25 OF 2019

¶5

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 23.11.2017 IN O.P (MV) NO.1443 OF 2015 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM

¶6

APPELLANT/PETITIONER :-

¶7

BABU LUKOSE, S/O.M.LUKOSE, MANCHADIVILAKAM,
KARANCODE P.O., CHOORAPOIKA, CHATHANNOOR,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 572.

¶8

BY ADVS.
K.SIJU
SMT.RENY ANTO

¶9

RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT :-

¶10

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶11

BY ADV SMT.P.A.REZIYA - SC

¶12

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 05.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

MACA NO. 25 OF 2019

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.1443 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. The respondent herein is the 3^rd respondent before the tribunal.

¶17

According to the appellant/claimant on 24.07.2015 at about 6.45 pm the appellant was riding the scooter bearing Registration No.KL-02-AT-4156 through the Choorapoika-Uranvila road from north to south direction. While so, the 2^nd respondent in the original petition had driven lorry bearing Registration No.KL40E-6531 in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the scooter of the petitioner. Due to its impact the petitioner had fell down and sustained grave injuries. The appellant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

¶18

The respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced on either side. Exts.A1 to A14 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant and no documentary evidence was adduced by

¶19

MACA NO. 25 OF 2019

¶20

¶21

the respondents and Ext.C1 disability certificate was marked on the side of the court exhibit. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of Rs.1,66,300/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

¶23

The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads :-

¶24

Income/notional income :- the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the petitioner was a welder by profession and he was earning monthly income of Rs.25,000/- per month. However, the tribunal has taken only Rs.5,000/- as his notional income. There is a contention that he was a welder by profession but no single piece of document has been adduced by the appellant to show that he was a welder or working under any contractor and further he had not adduced any oral evidence to

¶25

MACA NO. 25 OF 2019

¶26

¶27

prove his avocation. However, considering the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], I fixed the notional monthly income at Rs.10,000/-.

¶28

Loss of earning :- since the notional income is refixed at Rs.10,000/-, the loss of income has to be recalculated. Thus, the total compensation under the said head will be Rs.50,000/(Rs.10,000 x 5). The tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- and thus, there will be an additional amount of Rs.25,000/under the said head.

¶29

Loss of amenities :- it is seen that the appellant was aged 53 years and he was having fracture on the left humerus along with some other injuries, I feel that a total compensation payable under the head can be fixed at Rs.30,000/-. Thus, there will be an additional amount of Rs.5,800/under the said head.

¶30

Pain and suffering :- though Rs.50,000/- was claimed by the appellant, only Rs.25,000/- was awarded by the tribunal. Considering the nature of injuries as well as age of the appellant, I feel that an amount of Rs.40,000/- is just and reasonable compensation under the said head. Accordingly, there will be an

¶31

MACA NO. 25 OF 2019

¶32

¶33

additional amount of Rs.15,000/under the said head.

¶34

Compensation for permanent disability :- since there is an enhancement of the notional income the compensation payable under the said head has to be recalculated. Thus, there will be a total compensation of Rs.1,45,200/- (10,000x12x11x11/100). Therefore, there will be an additional amount of Rs.72,600/- .

¶35

Extra nourishment :- it is submitted that though Rs.5,000/was claimed by the appellant, the tribunal has given only a meager amount of Rs.800/- under the said head. Accordingly, I fixed the total compensation payable under the said head would come to Rs.1,200/-. Thus, there will be an additional amount of Rs.400/under the said head.

¶36

Though the appellant claimed enhancement of compensation under other heads, on a perusal of the records available, I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads since it appears to be just and reasonable.

¶37

Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows :-

¶38

MACA NO. 25 OF 2019

¶39

¶40

Sl. No.	Head of Claim	Amount claimed	Amount awarded by the tribunal	Modified in appeal	Total compensation
1	Loss of earnings	50,000	25,000	25,000	50,000
2	Partial loss of earnings	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
3	Transport to hospital	20,000	2,000	(not modified)	2,000
4	Extra nourishment	5,000	800	400	1,200
5	Damage to clothing and articles	5,000	1,000	(not modified)	1,000
6	Others 1. Bystanders expenses	10,000	1,200		1,200
	2. Medicine 3.Loss of amenities in life	50,000 50,000	14,500 24,200	5,800	14,500 30,000
7	Compensation for pain and suffering	50,000	25,000	15,000	40,000
8	Compensation for continuing or permanent disabilityif any		72,600	72,600	1,45,200
9	Compensation for loss of earnings & further treatment	2,60,000	Nil	(not modified)	Nil
	TOTAL	5,00,000	1,66,300	1,18,800	2,85,100

¶41

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant/claimant is awarded an additional compensation of

¶42

MACA NO. 25 OF 2019

¶43

¶44

Rs.1,18,800/- (Rupees one lakh eighteen thousand eight hundred only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount together with interest and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The claimant shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, ADHAAR Card and bank details before the respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellant at the earliest in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that the enhanced compensation will not carry interest for the period of delay of 284 days in filing the appeal.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE

¶47

SMA

Babu Lukose v. the Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Lukose v. the Divisional Manager

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

Zakariya.P.P Vs Krishnankutty.K

Nafeesa Vs the National Insurance Co.Ltd

Sijo, Vs Kuttappan

Thomas C.M Vs Tajuddeen K

V.P.Abbas Vs the New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Sanam Sahib Vs Akhilraj