Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29482
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
– Appellant
Versus
S.ANEESH – Respondent
MACA 2397 2022
LAL GEORGE SEBASTIAN VARGHESE(K/141/2000), N.S.NAJEEB, R.T.PRADEEP
Compensation in personal injury cases must reflect both present losses and future earning potential, ensuring fairness and reasonableness under established legal standards.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166, 168 - The court analyzed the compensation awarded under various heads, adjusting amounts for permanent disability and loss of amenities based on medical evidence and relevant legal precedents.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arise from a motor accident where the claimant sustained severe injuries. The insurance company disputed the high compensation for loss of amenities while the claimant sought enhancement for permanent disability compensation awarded by the tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the tribunal's award for loss of amenities excessive and adjusted the compensation for permanent disability based on future earnings, reinforcing the principle that adequate compensation should consider both present and future circumstances.
Issues: The main issues were whether the compensation for loss of amenities was excessive and whether the compensation for permanent disability was sufficient.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that while compensation for permanent disability should be substantial, the amounts for loss of amenities must be minimized when adequate disability compensation exists.
Final Decision: Compensation for permanent disability is enhanced to Rs. 25,61,625, while loss of amenities is reduced to Rs. 3,00,000.
JUDGMENT
[MACA Nos.2397/2022, 1330/2022]
These matters have been heard together today, at the request of both sides and based on their consent that it can be disposed of at the stage of the admission itself, as far as one among them is concerned, since the other had already been admitted.
2. Among the afore two appeals, MACA No.2397/2022 has been filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd., assailing the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in OP(MV)No.530/2016, to the sole extent to which it has granted Rs.19,14,600/- as compensation for ‘Loss of Amenities’ to Sri.S.Aneesh - who had been injured in a road accident on 19.05.2015, on account of the offending car - insured by them - having hit him, while standing on a road. They contend that, after the learned Tribunal had awarded just and fair compensation under every other head, the grant of an amount, as large as Rs.19,14,600/-, under the head ‘Loss of Amenities’ was impermissible.
3. While so, even after the afore appeal had been filed, Sri.S.Aneesh filed MACA No.1330/2022, impugning the same Award of the Tribunal, asserting that the compensation ordered under the head ‘Permanent Disability’ is exiguous; thus praying that it be enhanced to the amount sought for by him, namely Rs.2 Crores.
4. I have heard Sri.N.S.Najeeb, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant in MACA No.2397/2022 and Sri.K.C.Harish – learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MACA No.1330/2022.
5. I have considered the afore rival submissions on the touchstone of the evidence and documents on record – copies of which have been handed over across the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties with the express consent that they can be acted upon by this Court without dispute.
6. As the afore narrative shows, there are only two issues in controversy between the parties in these appeals. While the Insurance Company assails the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘Loss of Amenities’ as being excessive; Sri.S.Aneesh - the claimant, impugns the Award on the ground that the compensation for ‘Permanent Disability’ is exiguous. 7. I notice that the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation under the head ‘Permanent Disability’ taking the monthly income of the claimant - who is admittedly working as a Professor in a College – as being Rs.48,350/-, based on the documents proving it; and then, adopting half of it as his notional income, reckoning that he would retire when attains the age of 56 in the year 2037. The Tribunal then proceeded to adopt the multiplier of ‘9’, on the presumption that the claimant would not lose any salary or benefits during the time when he is in service, because it is a permanent employment.
8. However, it must be borne in mind that the amount of Rs.48,350/-, reckoned as the income of the claimant by the Tribunal is, as on the date of accident, or when the trial was proceeded with. He was only 34 years in age at the time of the accident and his year of birth has been certified to be 1981 - which is without contest. Obviously, by the time he retires in the year 2037, his salary would be much more than what has been reckoned by the Tribunal. True, it has added 50% as future prospects to such notional income; but am of the firm view that this would also be insufficient because, the fiscal standards of the year 2037 would be far far different from what we see even today - much less than what it was in the year 2015 – when the accident happened.
9. Therefore, when one has to reckon the notional income to be taken in such cases, certainly, every relevant and germane fact, including prospects of the claimant, his educational qualifications, the competence to work after the age of 56 and the capacity to earn beyond that period, will have to be kept in mind. As I have already said above, it is uncontested that the claimant is a Professor and who was mere 34 years at the time of the accident. The learned Tribunal has found, on evaluation of his physi
