Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MRS. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J
SAJI P. JOHN @ SIMON P.J – Appellant
Versus
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD – Respondent
MACA NO. 3307 OF 2015
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The appeal concerns an enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident (!) (!) .
The incident occurred on 23.07.2007 involving a rash and negligent driver, resulting in the claimant sustaining serious injuries and claiming a total compensation of ₹2,00,000/-, with the tribunal awarding ₹1,10,280/- (!) (!) .
The tribunal's award was based on analysis of negligence, injury impact, and relevant heads of compensation, with interest awarded at 9% per annum, and penal interest at 12% in case of default (!) .
The appellant seeks higher compensation under various heads, citing the need for adjustments based on the injury severity and income details.
The court found that the tribunal's assessment of income was understated; the appellant's actual income was ₹11,176/- per month, but only ₹7,000/- was considered. However, the court rejected reliance on certain judgments for income estimation, favoring previous applicable case law (!) (!) .
For pain and suffering, the disability was assessed at 6%, with injuries including fractures of ribs. The tribunal awarded ₹20,000/-, but the court increased this to ₹30,000/-, granting an additional ₹10,000/- (!) .
Regarding loss of earning capacity, the court upheld the tribunal's multiplier of 9, citing relevant legal principles, and found no reason to alter the compensation awarded under this head (!) .
The court noted that no claim was made for loss of amenities, but the tribunal's award of ₹15,000/- was increased to ₹30,000/- to reflect loss of enjoyment, resulting in an additional ₹15,000/- (!) .
The court did not interfere with other heads of compensation awarded by the tribunal, considering them just and reasonable (!) .
The tribunal’s award of penal interest at 12% was deemed unsustainable; the court reduced the interest rate to 7% per annum for the enhanced amount, considering the delay in filing the appeal (!) (!) .
The final modified award grants the claimant an additional ₹25,000/- over the tribunal’s original award, with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition until realization, to be deposited within two months (!) .
The respondent insurer is required to deposit the modified amount along with accrued interest and costs, upon receipt of the claimant’s bank and identification details, with the disbursement to follow promptly after deposit (!) (!) .
These points summarize the court's reasoning, modifications, and directives based on the case details.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim presented after accident for enhancement of compensation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the tribunal awarded compensation based on negligence facts. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. disputed heads of compensation addressed with court's rationale. (Para 5) |
| 4. modifications in compensation and adjustments for penalties discussed. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
The appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.1135 of
2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein is the second respondent before the tribunal.
2. According to the claimant, on 23.07.2007 at about 9.00 p.m., while the claimant was travelling in a Scorpio jeep bearing registration No.KL-012/1515 driven by the third respondent in a rash and negligent manner through Kadambanadu – Enathu public road, it hit against the boundary wall of the southern property and in consequence of which the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹2,00,000/- which is limited to ₹1,50,000/-.
3. Though notice was issued to the first and third respondents, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, they remained absent and were set ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent - insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A12 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the third respondent and awarded a sum of ₹1,10,280/-, which is limited to ₹1,10,000/-, as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the second respondent being the insurer and in default of payment as above, penal interest @ 12% per annum was also awarded. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent insurer.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads:
I. Notional income The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant, aged 42 years, was working as an L.D. Clerk in St.Cyril’s College, Adoor, and was earning an amount of ₹11,176/- at the time of the accident. However, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹7,000/- as the monthly income. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the apex Court in Devendra Singh v. General Manager Managing Director KSRTC [2023 KHC 7199], Shyno.M.Aykara v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd [ 2023 KHC 3017 ], and the judgment of this court in James Joseph v. George Kurian [2025 KHC 204] and submitted that the income at the time of accident has to be taken even though he is a government employee. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company, on the other hand, submitted that the appellant sustained only 6% disability on account of the injuries and that such minimal disability did not result in any loss of employment or earnings.
The above apex court judgments relied on by the appellant is not applicable in this case, since it pertains to death cases. In James Joseph (supra), relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, also refers to another judgment of this Court in Kamala v. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. [2024 KHC Online 791], which is also a death case. Hence these judgments are not applicable to the facts of this case. Going by the judgment of this court in Raju Sebastian v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd [ 2021 (5) KHC 662 ], 50% of the salary has to be taken for awarding compensation under the head loss of future earning power. I am inclined to follow the judgment in Raju Sebastian (Supra) for deciding the income payable to the claimant in the present case. T
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
