Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 27788
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN TH FRIDAY, THE 10 DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 20TH POUSHA, 1946 MACA NO. 2172 OF 2022 OPMV NO.1845 OF 2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SULFIKER U.M., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED ASHRAF, UNICHIRIYATT HOUSE, METHALAPADAM, P.O.METHALA,KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DIST.680669 (PHYSICALLY INCAPACITATED PERSON) REP.BY FATHER MOHAMED ASHRAF, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.ABDU, UNICHIRIYATT HOUSE, P.O.METHALA, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DIST-, PIN - 680669 BY ADVS.
A.R.NIMOD M.A.AUGUSTINE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SIDHI.N.K., S/O.KUNCHIVAPPU, NALAKATH HOUSE, P.O.ARIYANNUR, THALAPPILLY TALUK,THRISSUR DIST., PIN - 680102
2 SAJAN V.S., S/O.SREENIVASAN V.K., VETTATH HOUSE, CHEMMANTHATTA P.O., PAZHUNNANA, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DIST., PIN - 680501
3 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
MANGALAM TOWERS, T.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER., PIN - 678014 BY ADV K.S.SANTHI THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARNG ON
13.11.2024, ALONG WITH MACA.2472/2022, THE COURT ON 10.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN TH FRIDAY, THE 10 DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 20TH POUSHA, 1946 MACA NO. 2472 OF 2022 OPMV NO.1845 OF 2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , IRINJALAKUDA APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITTED.
AGED 37 YEARS, MAMANGALAM TOWERS, TB ROAD, PALAKKAD, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER , LEGAL - CLAIMS , REGIONAL OFFICE, IMPERIAL TRADE CENTERE , 4TH FLOOR , MG ROAD, KOCHI., PIN - 682035 BY ADVS.
P.JACOB MATHEW PREETHY R. NAIR MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
SULFIKKAR.U.M, AGED 33, S/O MUHAMMED ASHARAF, UNICHIRAYATT HOUSE, METHALAPPADAM, METHALA P.O, KODUNGALLOOR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. NOW REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER MOHAMMED ASHARAF, AGED 65, S/O ABDU, UNICHIRAYATT HOUSE, METHALAPPADAM, METHALA P.O, KODUNGALLOOR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680669 BY ADVS.
A.R.NIMOD M.A.AUGUSTINE(K/000511/2005)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARNG ON
13.11.2024, ALONG WITH MACA.2172/2022, THE COURT ON 10.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Court emphasizes the need for compensation to reflect the victim's functional disability and future potential losses, modifying the tribunal's award accordingly.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Claims arising from motor accident - Appeal against compensation - Claimant assessed with 100% functional disability entitled to additional compensation of ₹36,34,000/- with interest at 8% per annum, reflecting on the effects of permanent disability and pain on a young victim's life, considering judgments in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Benson George v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Paras 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5)
(B) Appeal - Jurisdiction and scope of reviewing compensation awarded - The tribunal’s award may be modified based on judicial precedents and evidence presented (Paras 6.1-6.5)
Facts of the case:
The claimant sustained serious injuries in a road accident and sought ₹1,17,45,000/- as compensation from the tribunal, which awarded ₹54,39,900/-. The claimant contested the amount, while the insurer deemed it excessive. (Para 3)
Findings of Court:
The tribunal’s determination of compensation under various heads was scrutinized and modified, granting an additional ₹36,34,000/- in favor of the claimant, demonstrating the impact of the claimant's 100% disability on his earning capacity and quality of life. (Paras 6.1-6.5)
Issues: The adequacy of compensation awarded for notional income, permanent disability, pain and suffering, and the method of calculating bystander expenses and loss of amenities. (Paras 6.1-6.5)
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the proportional allocation of compensation based on functional disability, emphasizing the need for adjustments reflecting future earning potential and quality of life for the permanently disabled victim. (Paras 6.2, 6.3, 6.5)
Result: MACA No.2172 of 2022 is allowed in part and MACA No.2472 of 2022 is dismissed with specific provisions for payment to the claimant.
JUDGMENT
These appeals arise from the impugned award dated 08.03.2022 in OP(MV) No.1845 of 2017 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. MACA No.2172 of 2022 is filed by the claimant dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, whereas MACA No. 2472 of 2022 is filed by the insurer alleging that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is excessive.
2. Since the parties and the cause of action are the same, the appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For brevity, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the tribunal.
3. The case of the claimant is that on 02.02.2015, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-47/C-1987 through Anchappalam road, a car bearing Reg.No.KL-46/E-7594 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motorcycle ridden by him, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹1,17,45,000/-.
4. The first respondent remained ex parte before the tribunal.
The second respondent appeared before the tribunal and filed a written statement, denying negligence. The respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, PW1 to PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A28 were marked on the side of the claimant and Ext.X1 was marked as a third party exhibit. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹54,39,900/- as compensation under different heads against the third respondent being the insurer. Challenging this, the claimant as well as the insurer has come up in appeal.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the claimant and the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer challenges the compensation awarded by the tribunal mainly under the following heads:
6.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the claimant was a holder of diploma in Civil Engineering and he was working with Peekay Constructions as Site Engineer and was drawing a monthly salary of ₹20,000/- at the time of the accident. Ext.A19 is the salary certificate issued from Peekay Constructions. The PWD contractor was examined as PW1 and he testified that the claimant was given a monthly salary of ₹20,000/-. Other than the deposition of PW1 and Ext.A19, no other supporting evidence was produced to prove that the claimant was being paid an amount of ₹20,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the claimant also relied on Ext.A20 offer letter from United Precast Concrete, Dubai, Ext.A21 e-visa dated 25.01.2015 and Ext.A22 boarding pass issued from Air India Express. There is no document otherwise to prove that he had accepted the offer. Considering all these facts, I find that the amount arrived at by the tribunal is just and reasonable and I am not inclined to interfere with the same.
6.2. Permanent disability - The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submitted that though as per Ext.X1 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board of the Government Medical College Hospital, Thrissur, the whole body disability was assessed as 95%, while assessing compensation, the tribunal fixed the whole body disability as 100% functional disability, which is unsustainable. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the claimant was a diploma holder in Civil Engineering and was a Site Engineer aged 27 years and the tribunal has rightly taken 100% functional disability for assessing compensation considering the nature of injuries sustained. With 95% permanent disability, the career prospects and daily life would be severely impacted
