Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 30487
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J
THE MANAGER
– Appellant
Versus
SAJEEVAN – Respondent
RP 1237 2022
P.K. BABU
Proper age verification influences the multiplier used for calculating compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - Summary: The court recalculated compensation related to permanent disability under the Motor Vehicles Act, applying the correct age multiplier, leading to a revised compensation amount for the claimant.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant sought compensation for injuries from a motor vehicle accident, resulting in an award by the Tribunal. The awarded compensation was subsequently contested for inadequacy in an appeal, leading to additional compensation awarded by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimant's age was miscalculated in the previous judgment, requiring the application of a correct multiplier for recalculating the permanent disability compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Issues: Whether the correct age of the claimant affects the application of the multiplier for calculating compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that accurate age determination is crucial for applying appropriate multipliers in compensation calculations, as confirmed by precedent cases.
Final Decision: The review petition is allowed to the extent indicated, adjusting the compensation downward based on the correct age of the claimant.
ORDER
The review petitioner is the 3rd respondent-insurer in M.A.C.A.No.2337 of 2013, arising out of the award dated 30.08.2013 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, in O.P(MV)No.630 of 2010. The said original petition was one filed by the 1st respondent herein-claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident, which occurred on 22.04.2010, while he was travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-08/AH-6080, as a pillion rider. At the place of the accident, the motorcycle was hit by a lorry bearing registration No.KL-07/H-1825, owned and driven by respondents 2 and 3 herein and insured with the petitioner herein. In the original petition, the claimant claimed a total compensation of Rs.13,46,000/- under various heads, which was limited to Rs.13,00,000/- for the purpose of payment of court fee. The Tribunal, by the award dated 30.08.2013, awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,95,950/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation, with proportionate costs. On a finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, the petitioner herein-insurer was directed to satisfy the award.
2. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant filed M.A.C.A.No.2337 of 2013 before this Court, which was disposed of by judgment dated 03.12.2019 granting an additional compensation of Rs.3,89,625/- together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and the petitioner herein-insurer was directed to satisfy the additional compensation granted in the appeal, together with interest, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that judgment.
3. Towards permanent disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,44,000/- [4,000x12x15x20/100]. Since the monthly income of the appellant/claimant was refixed notionally as Rs.6,000/-, applying the multiplier applicable to the age group of 31-35 years and the percentage of the permanent disability as 40%, the compensation under permanent disability was re-fixed as Rs.4,60,800/- [6,000x12x16x40/100], resulting in additional compensation of Rs.3,16,800/- [4,60,800 - 1,44,000].
4. The petitioner-insurer has filed this review petition, invoking the provisions under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking a review of the judgment dated 03.12.2019 in M.A.C.A.No.2337 of 2013, by contending that the age of the 1st respondent-claimant as on the date of the accident was 38 years, which came to the knowledge of the insurer only on production of Annexure-A2 PAN card with Permanent Account No.LOBPS2482E, by the claimant, after the judgment in M.A.C.A.No.2337 of 2013, in which his date of birth is shown as 12.05.1971. If, as on the date of the accident, the 1st respondent- claimant was aged 38 years, the multiplier applicable is 15, instead of the multiplier of 16 applied by this Court in the judgment in M.A.C.A.No.2337 of 2013.
5. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner-
insurer. Despite the service of notice, there is no appearance for respondents 3 and 4. Service of notice to respondents 1 and 2 was effected through paper publication.
6. In the judgment sought to be reviewed, the compensation under the head permanent disability was re-fixed as Rs.4,60,800/- [6,000x12x16x40/100], since the monthly income of the claimant was refixed notionally as Rs.6,000/-, and applying the multiplier applicable to the age group of 31-35 years and the percentage of the permanent disability as 40%, as against Rs.1,44,000/- [4,000x12x15x20/100] awarded by the Tribunal.
7. Now, as evident from Annexure A2 PAN card with Permanent Account No.LOBPS2482E produced by the 1st respondent-claimant before the petitioner herein-insurer, the age of the claimant as on the date of the accident was 38 yea
