Allowed

Rainy Jaison v. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Kerala HC18 Jun 2024MACA/2857/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the Motor Accident Appeal, enhancing the compensation awarded by the tribunal from Rs.1,61,630 to Rs.2,57,870. The court revised the notional monthly income, adjusted the period for loss of earnings, reinstated the higher disability percentage, and increased amounts for pain and suffering and loss of amenities.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.1,61,630 to Rs.2,57,870 with interest and costs; respondent insurer directed to deposit the additional amount.

Rainy Jaison Vs the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1946
MACA NO. 2857 OF 2019

¶4

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 14.03.2019 IN O.P (MV) NO.377 OF 2016 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA

¶5

APPELLANT/PETITIONER :-

¶6

RAINY JAISON, W/O.JAISON,
AGED 32 YEARS, THEKKUMPURAM HOUSE,
KANNAMBATHUR DESOM, THORAVU VILLAGE,
CHENGALLOOR P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADV A.N.SANTHOSH

¶8

RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT :-

¶9

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
MALIACKAL GALAXY, OPP.MSM COLLEGE,
KAYAMKULAM-690 502.

¶10

BY ADV SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW

¶11

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 18.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

MACA NO. 2857 OF 2019

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.377 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The respondent herein is the 2^nd respondent before the tribunal.

¶16

According to the appellant/claimant, on 03.01.2016 at about 9.30 am, while she was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL 08 V 4595 through Amballur-Pudukkad sector of NH 47, an autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KL 23 E 3301 driven by the 1^st respondent came in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and hit against the motorcycle, as a result of which the petitioner sustained serious injuries. The appellant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

¶17

The respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, the evidence consists of documentary evidence as Exts.A1 to A10 on the

¶18

MACA NO. 2857 OF 2019

¶19

¶20

side of the appellant/claimant and Exts.B1 and B2 on the side of the respondent. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of 1,61,630/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the second respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Income/notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant/claimant was working as Accountant in a private timber company and was earning a monthly income of Rs.12,000/- per month. But the tribunal has considered only an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month. The learned counsel further submits that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal

¶24

MACA NO. 2857 OF 2019

¶25

¶26

Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951], the notional income ought to have been f i xed at Rs.10,500/- since the accident occurred in the year 2016. On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the accident occurred on 03.01.2016. Even going by Ramachandrappa (supra), I am of the opinion that the notional income has to be enhanced and therefore, the notional income is ref i xed at Rs.10,500/- per month.

¶27

Loss of earnings :- The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant, being a lady, had suf f ered undisplaced fracture of left cuboid and subluxation of subtalar joint. Therefore, she could not go for any work for almost six months. The tribunal has considered only for a period of three months for calculating the loss of earnings. On considering the facts of the case and the injuries sustained, I am of the opinion that a period of four months can be taken into consideration for computing the compensation under the head loss of earnings. Since the notional monthly income has already been f i xed at Rs.10,500/-, the total compensation under the said head would be Rs.42,000/- (10,500x4). Thus, there will be an additional

¶28

¶29

MACA NO. 2857 OF 2019

¶30

amount of Rs.18,000/- under the said head.

¶31

Pain and sufering : f - Though the appellant claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards pain and suf f ering, the tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.30,000/-. The learned counsel points out that the appellant was a lady aged 29 years and she had to do household duties as well as her personal duties in spite of the injuries sustained and had to undergo a lot of pain. Therefore, the amount awarded towards pain and suf f ering is very low. Considering the injuries suf f ered and age of the appellant, I feel that a further additional amount of Rs.5,000/- can be granted towards compensation for pain and suf f ering. Thus, the total compensation under the said head is Rs.35,000/-

¶32

Compensation for permanent disability :- The

¶33

learned counsel for the appellant submits that Ext.A6 disability certificate issued by the Doctor reveals that the appellant had 6% permanent disability, but the tribunal had reduced the disability to 4%. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company submitted that though the disability certificate was produced, it was a single doctor certificate and

¶34

¶35

MACA NO. 2857 OF 2019

¶36

no evidence was adduced. However, on perusal of Ext.A6 certificate, a copy of which is handed over to me, it is seen that the doctor was assessed 6% disability after examining the appellant. The reasoning of the tribunal does not appear to be acceptable in view of the decisions of this Court in Manikantan G. v. K.Janardhanan Nair [2021(5) KHC 305] and Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar [2011 (1) KLT 620 SC]. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to consider 6% disability, as assessed in Ext.A6 disability certificate, for the purpose of calculating compensation. Accordingly, the compensation under the head permanent disability has to be recomputed. Since the monthly income has been enhanced to Rs.10,500/-, the compensation for permanent disability has to be recalculated as Rs.1,28,520/- (10,500x12x17x6/100). The tribunal has awarded Rs.65,280-. Thus, there will be an additional enhancement of Rs.63,240/- under the said head.

¶37

Loss of amenities :- Though the appellant had claimed Rs.50,000/- under the head of loss of amenities, the tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained and also the age of the

¶38

MACA NO. 2857 OF 2019

¶39

¶40

appellant, I feel that a further amount of Rs.10,000/- can be added under the said head.

¶41

Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is

¶42

modified as follows:

¶43

Sl. No.	Head of Claim	Amount claimed	Amount awarded by the tribunal	Modified in appeal	Total compensation
1	Loss of earnings	72,000	24,000	18,000	42,000
2	Transportation expenses	5,00	2,000	(not modified)	2,000
3	Extra nourishment	5,000	1,000	(not modified)	1,000
4	Damage to clothings	5,000	1,000	(not modified)	1,000
5	Attendant expenses	5,000	600	(not modified)	600
6	Medical expenses	25,000	17,750	(not modified)	17,750
7	Pain & suffering	50,000	30,000	5,000	35,000
8	Permanent disability	2,00,000	65,280	63,240	1,28,520
9	Loss of amenities	50,000	20,000	10,000	30,000
10	Loss of earning power	1,00,000	Nil	Nil	Nil
11	Disfiguration	50,000	Nil	Nil	Nil
12	i Mental dejection	30,000	Nil	Nil	Nil
13	Anticipated medical expenses	50,000	Nil	Nil	Nil
	TOTAL	5,97,000	1,61,630	96,240	2,57,870

¶44

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the

¶45

appellant/claimant is awarded an additional compensation of

¶46

MACA NO. 2857 OF 2019

¶47

¶48

Rs.96,240/- (Rupees ninety six thousand two hundred and forty only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 8% 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, AADHAAR 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.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE

¶51

SMA

Rainy Jaison v. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rainy Jaison v. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

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

Raju.K.J Vs Deepak.T.v

Rovins Vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd

Saleena Vs Babu.K.P.

Saijan Thomas, Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,Chalakudy

Bincy, Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Johny Vs R.Anbalagan