Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 30089
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
SALINI – Appellant
Versus
SUDHEER – Respondent
MACA 2852 2020
C.HARIKUMAR, SRI.RENJITH RAJAPPAN, SMT.NOVA SEN ABRAHAM, SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
A proper calculation of compensation must consider notional income, future prospects, and adequate amounts for pain and suffering, particularly in severe injury cases.
Headnote:
Compensation - Personal Injury - Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 166, 168 - The court found the original compensation insufficient, emphasizing properly calculated notional income, future prospects, and sufficient awards for pain and suffering, increasing total compensation due to severe injuries.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant suffered severe injuries in an accident involving a bus while riding pillion on a scooter with her husband. She sought compensation for her injuries but was awarded significantly less than claimed.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate, failing to account properly for the appellant's income and future prospects, and did not provide sufficient compensation for pain and suffering.
Issues: Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was adequate in light of the appellant's injuries and economic loss.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that a proper assessment of notional income and the addition of future prospects is essential in compensation calculations, emphasizing the need for adequate awards for both economic and non-economic damages.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation awarded to the appellant.
JUDGMENT
While the appellant was riding pillion on a scooter, along with her husband, it was knocked down by the offending bus driven in a rash and negligent manner, on 16.06.2012. She suffered severe crush injury on her right foot, loss of extensor tendon and fracture of metatarsal, apart from other injuries, and had to endure prolonged treatment. She later filed OP(MV)No.34/2013 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur (the 'Tribunal' for short), seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-, but which has been allowed only to a sum of Rs.6,12,747/-; thus constraining her to file this appeal.
2. Smt.Sandra Sunny – learned counsel appearing for the appellant, argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate because it has taken her client's notional income to be a mere Rs.5,500/- per month, when claimed was Rs.7,187/-, and that too, on the strength of a validly proved document, namely, Ext.A9 – Leave Certificate. She argued that 50% future prospects ought to have been added to this by the Tribunal, and she relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. [2020 SCC Online SC 601].
3. Smt.Sandra Sunny, thereafter, submitted that, reckoning the severe trauma suffered by her client, the learned Tribunal ought to have granted much more under the heads “pain and suffering” and “extra nourishment” and thus prayed that this appeal be allowed.
4. In response, Sri.P.Jacob Mathew - learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, argued that the computations adopted by the Tribunal are without error and, therefore, prayed that this appeal be dismissed.
5. I have evaluated the afore rival submissions, on the touchstone of various materials and evidence 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. The major component of compensation in the Award of the Tribunal is under the head “permanent disability”. This has been allowed to a sum of Rs.2,87,496/-, reckoning the notional income of the appellant to be Rs.5,500/- and the permanent disability 24.2%, as certified by Ext.A10 – Certificate. However, inRamachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared that, even in the case of a 'coolie' or a person with an unascertainable income in the year 2012 – when the accident occurred – a minimum figure of Rs.8,500/- ought to have been reckoned. But, since the appellant had claimed only Rs.7,187/-, at least that sum ought to have been granted.
7. That being so declared, going by the injuries sustained by the appellant, which is proved by Ext.A3 –
Wound Certificate and Ext.A4 - Discharge Summary, namely:
“severe crush injury on right foot with flap avulsion on the antero medial aspect big toe, metatarsal of 2nd, 3rd and 5th toes with gross contamination” (sic), it is indubitable that she had to go through extreme trauma, which is further fortified by the fact that she was treated as an inpatient for 27 days. The Tribunal itself has recorded, based on the Discharge Summary, that the appellant underwent plastic surgery to manage the crush injury, which was reiterated by an Assistant Professor in Orthopaedics, Govt. Medical College, Thrissur, who issued Ext.A10 – Disability Certificate, recording her whole body disability to be 24.2%. Even though the Tribunal has accepted this figure, which the Insurance Company has not opposed, the fact remains that it did not add any amount towards future prospects, along with the income claimed by her.
8. As rightly argued by Smt.Santra Sunny, in Erudhaya Priya (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court granted 50% 'Future Prospects' in the case of a person who suffered injuries leading to a permanent disability of 31.1%. Going by the standards which the Honourable Supreme Court has so shown, I am certain
