Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 7713
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
JINESH – Appellant
Versus
MURUGAN – Respondent
MACA 2586 2014
ADV SRI.A.R.GEORGE, ADVS.KALEESWARAM RAJ THULASI K. RAJ(K/000814/2015)
Compensation in personal injury cases must reflect injuries' long-term impacts, adjusting awards for future treatment and disability based on reliable medical assessments and precedent.
Headnote:
Compensation - Road Accident - Motor Vehicle Act - Sections Related to Compensation - The court analyzed the appellant's injuries and their impact on life, applying the Motor Vehicle Act's provisions on compensation to adjust existing awards for pain, suffering, and disability, ensuring a framework for future treatment costs.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, grievously injured in a road accident resulting in leg amputation, sought compensation higher than the awarded amount by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, while the insurer contested the compensation awarded under various heads as excessive.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the compensation for pain and suffering, finding it justified based on medical evidence, and partially modified the future treatment compensation, acknowledging the appellant's permanent disability.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the adequacy of compensation awarded for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, future treatment costs, and the denial of compensation under the head of disability.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined the notional income, future prospects of the appellant, and the significance of the degree of disability in recalculating the compensation, referencing previous judgments to support its findings.
Final Decision: The appeals are partly allowed; compensation under 'Loss of Permanent Disability' is set at Rs. 7,56,000, and future treatment costs reduced to Rs. 4,00,000, with other awards unchanged.
JUDGMENT
[MACA Nos.1389/2014,2586/2014]
These two appeals have been heard together because they emanate from the same accident and Final Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, in OP(MV) No.
1354 of 2004.
2. The above OP was filed by Sri.Jinesh, who is the appellant in MACA No. 2586 of 2014, since he was grievously injured in a road accident on 27.04.2004 - when the motor cycle ridden by him was hit by the offending Mini Lorry, driven in a rash and negligent manner. He suffered very grievous injuries, which finally led to one of his legs being amputated; and he thereupon filed the afore Original Petition before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.1,39,10,000/-, limited to 99,00,000/-; but which has been awarded only to a sum of Rs. 28,00,044/-
3. Sri.Jinesh, therefore, has filed his appeal impugning the Award of the learned Tribunal as being exiguous; while, MACA No 1389 of 2014 has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - which insured the offending vehicle - on the ground that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under three heads, namely “Pain and Suffering”, “Loss of Amenities” and “Future Cost and Repair of Artificial Limbs” is excessive.
4. Sri.A.R.George, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, argued that, as is evident from the impugned Award, even though large sums of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- have been awarded under the heads “Pain and Suffering” and “Loss of Amenities” respectively, a further amount of Rs.6,00,000/- has been granted towards “cost of Artificial Limbs”, even though same had not been asked for. He further argued that, when it is admitted that Sri.Jinesh was only a student at the time of the accident, there was no question of awarding him any compensation for “future loss of earnings” or for reduction of his income earning capacity; and therefore, that the afore sums are deserving of being scaled down substantially. He thus prayed that MACA No.1389 of 2014 be allowed.
5. Per contra Smt.Thulasi K. Raj, learned counsel appearing for Sri.Jinesh - appellant in MACA No.2586 of 2014, argued extensively, relying upon the medical evidence on record, to show me that the injuries sustained by her client were so serious, that he was hospitalised for 90 days and had to endure the horrific aftermath of amputation of his right leg.
She submitted that her client has been thus forced to use “hydraulic type knee”, along with a prosthetic limb, which has to be maintained carefully and to be replaced from time to time, for which, the future cost of treatment awarded by the Tribunal - even though not asked for - was fully justified. She further argued that the pain and agony suffered by her client cannot be measured in pecunary terms and therefore, that what has been awarded by the Tribunal is, in fact, inadequate, contrary to what has been asserted by Sri.A.R George as afore.
6. Smt.Thulasi K.Raj then went on to the main line of submission that learned Tribunal has completely erred in not having been awarded any amounts to her client under the head “disability” when, admittedly, Ext.A14 - Medical Certificate has been issued by validly constituted Medical Board attached to the Medical College, Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram certifying his degree of permanent disability to be 80%. She thus prayed that, MACA No.2586 of 2014 be allowed and MACA No.1389 of 2014, filed by the Insurance Company, be dismissed.
7. I have examined the afore rival contentions of the parties and have tested them on the worth of the evidence on record – copies of which have been made available to this Court by the learned counsel for the parties across the Bar, with the express consent that they can be acted upon, without dispute.
8. I will first deal with the submissions of Sri.A.R George, before moving on to those impelled by Smt. Thulasi K.Raj.
9. As seen above, the Insurance Company maintains that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal to Sri.Jinesh under the heads “Pain a
