Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 55748
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SYAM KUMAR V.M., J
BIJU S/O.SASIDHARAN – Appellant
Versus
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD – Respondent
MACA NO.589 OF 2018 | O.P.(M.V) NO.1273 OF 2011
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.V.BABY, SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH
For the Respondents: SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN
Important Points
Subject
Personal Injury - Motor Accident Claims
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Calculation of Compensation - Tribunal's approach to assess functional disability and future earnings contested. Court enhanced ongoing disability compensation and bystander expenses, recognizing the permanent impact on the appellant's life. (Paras 18, 19)
(C) Dismissal of Claims - Allocation of compensation amounts deemed inadequate; court applied multiplier method to enhance compensation for loss of amenities and future bystander expenses. (Paras 12, 15)
Findings of Court:
The accident left the appellant paraplegic, necessitating constant assistance for life. The Tribunal did not adequately consider the implications of the disability on the appellant's future and life quality.
Issues: The adequacy of compensation concerning permanent disability, pain and suffering, and delineation of bystander expenses were key concerns.
Ratio Decidendi: Courts must ensure that awards reflect actual life-altering impacts and provide just compensation. Notable precedents reiterate the necessity of considering future earning capacity and needs when awarding damages.
Result: Tribunal's award modified; total compensation increased to Rs.33,40,592/- with 8% interest from the date of application for certain amounts.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the accident and compensation claim. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. appellant's argument for enhanced compensation. (Para 5) |
| 3. insurance company's defense against enhancement claims. (Para 6) |
| 4. medical evidence of the appellant's severe injuries. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. tribunal's assessment of compensation parameters. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. legal principles on compensating for permanent disabilities. (Para 11) |
| 7. need for sufficient compensation for bystander expenses. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 8. diverse methods for calculating future attendant charges. (Para 15) |
| 9. recognition of loss of amenities as a compensable aspect. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 10. final decisions on revised compensation amounts. (Para 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 03rd day of December, 2024 This M.A.C.A. is filed challenging the Award dated 17.10.2017 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha in O.P.(M.V.) No.1273 of 2011. The appellant is the petitioner in the said O.P.(M.V).
Facts in brief:
2. On 05.09.2011, at 08.15 A.M., at Thuravoor bus stop, the appellant was knocked down by a car bearing No.KL-31/B-9909, driven in a rash and negligent manner. He sustained serious injuries and has now been rendered a paraplegic. He was only 38 years old at the time and was working as an Excise Guard with a monthly salary of Rs.19,012/-. His peaceful and happy life was overturned by the accident. He filed the above O.P.(M.V.) seeking to recover a compensation of Rs.73,69,080/- from the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle.
Proceedings before the Tribunal:
3. Pursuant to the notice, the owner of the car entered in appearance and filed a written statement inter alia pointing out that the vehicle had valid insurance coverage during the relevant time and that she was not liable to pay any compensation to the appellant. The driver of the car remained ex-parte. The respondent Insurance Company filed a written statement inter alia admitting the policy, but assailing the claim contending that the 2nd respondent driver had no driving licence at the time of the accident. The amount claimed under various heads was termed as exorbitant and unsustainable. Based on the pleadings, four issues were framed by the Tribunal and contesting parties went to trial on them. PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A19 and X1 were marked from the side of the appellant. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rendered an Award for an amount of Rs.23,26,092/- with interest and cost to be realised from the respondent Insurance Company. The said Award is challenged in this M.A.C.A. by the appellant as inadequate and meriting enhancement.
4. Heard Sri.A.N.Santhosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Sri.P.G.Ganappan, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company.
Contention in brief:
5. On behalf of the appellant, it was contended as follows :
● The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate and fails to take into account the extent of the disability sustained by the appellant in the accident.
● The Tribunal's award of compensation under the heading ‘pain and suffering’ is insufficient and fails to take into account the serious nature of the injuries suffered.
● The amount awarded as compensation for ‘future earnings’ is insufficient. The appellant has a disability of 85% as assessed by the Medical Board. The amount of monthly income after retirement assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.10,000/- is inadequate and erroneous.
● The Tribunal ought to have granted future bystander expenses.
The bystander expenses of Rs.50,000/- granted do not take note of the fact that the claimant has been rendered paraplegic for life.
● Reliance is placed on the dictum in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and others ( 2020 ACJ 1042 ), wherein the Supreme Court had awarded Rs.21,60,000/- towards attendant charges of a young girl who was rendered 100% disabled after an accident.
● In Jithendran v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [2021 (4) KLJ 646]
