Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 33090
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD – Appellant
Versus
S.ANEESH – Respondent
MACA 2397/2022
The court ruled that when adequate compensation for Permanent Disability is awarded, sums under Loss of Amenities should be minimal and reflect the claimant's future earning capacity and medical condition.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation for Permanent Disability and Loss of Amenities - Compensation under 'Permanent Disability' enhanced to Rs.25,61,625/-; 'Loss of Amenities' reduced to Rs.3,00,000/- from Rs.19,14,600/-; Tribunal's findings on other heads remain unaltered. (Paras 10, 13, 14)
(B) Notional income determination - Future prospects and age considered for calculating notional income; claimant's educational qualifications and permanent employment taken into account. (Paras 7, 9, 12)
Facts of the case:
The claimant, a Professor, was injured in a road accident on 19.05.2015, suffering severe head injuries and permanent disability certified at 55%. The Tribunal initially awarded Rs.19,14,600/- for Loss of Amenities and Rs.5,00,000/- for Pain and Suffering.
Findings of Court:
The court modified the compensation for Permanent Disability and Loss of Amenities based on a detailed evaluation of the claimant’s medical condition and future earning capacity.
Issues: The primary issues were the adequacy of compensation for Permanent Disability and whether the amount awarded for Loss of Amenities was excessive.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that when adequate compensation for disability is awarded, the amount for Loss of Amenities should be minimal. The claimant's future earning potential and current medical condition were critical in determining compensation.
Result: Compensation modified as stated.
JUDGMENT
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
