Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 23224
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J
KUNJUMON – Appellant
Versus
ANU.P.V – Respondent
MACA NO. 1642 OF 2020 | OP(MV) NO.475 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.M.B.SANDEEP, SMT.R.PRIYA, SMT.K.P.SREEJA, SHRI.AMAL STANLY
For the Respondents: SRI.ARUN BABU, SMT.AMBILI. G
Court upholds the principle that compensation must be just and reasonable, allowing adjustments based on accurate income assessments and claims for injuries, reinforcing the tribunal's discretion on disability evaluations.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act - Sections related to compensation claims - The claimant sought compensation for injuries sustained in a capsize accident involving an autorickshaw driven negligently. Claimant originally sought ₹24,65,000/- but the tribunal awarded ₹7,46,936/-. The claimant appealed for enhancement citing discrepancies in income estimation, loss of earnings, bystander expenses, and permanent disability. (Para 2 and 5)
(B) Compensation Quantum - Court finds re-fixing claimant's monthly income to ₹11,000/- and recalculating various heads of compensation warranted to meet just and reasonable compensation standards. Findings included adjustments for loss of earnings and bystander expenses, while maintaining the initial percentage of permanent disability as determined by the tribunal. (Para 5 and 6)
Facts of the case:
The claimant suffered injuries in an accident involving a rashly driven autorickshaw on 04.01.2017, resulting in hospitalization and subsequent claim for compensation. The tribunal's award was considered inadequate by the claimant. (Para 2)
Findings of Court:
The appeal led to a part enhancement in compensation, awarding an additional ₹1,80,450/- with interest directed against the insurer. (Para 7)
Issues: The court revisited the appropriateness of income estimates and compensation awarded under various heads versus what was claimed. The court resolved that adjustments were justified based on reasonable standards of compensation in such cases. (Paras 5 and 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that compensation must align with just and reasonable standards, allowing adjustments to the tribunal's calculations based on current standards and evidence provided. The final ruling reinforced the tribunal's discretion in disability assessment, while adjusting other components to fairly represent the claimant's suffering and losses. (Paras 5 and 6)
Result: The appeal is partly allowed, resulting in an additional award increasing the total compensation. (Para 7)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for compensation due to accident injuries. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's reasoning on compensation adjustments. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. final decision on enhanced compensation awarded. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.475 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.
2. According to the claimant, on 04.01.2017 at about 5.00 p.m., while the claimant was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-68-749 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, the vehicle capsized, causing the claimant to be thrown onto the road, as a result of which he sustained injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹24,65,000/- limited to ₹20,00,000/-.
3. The first respondent/driver and second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A13 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹7,46,936/- rounded to ₹7,47,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum as compensation under various heads against the 3rd respondent/insurer.
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/claimant and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent/insurer.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads:-
Notional income:- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹15,000/- was claimed, the tribunal has taken only an amount of ₹9,000/- as the monthly income of the injured who was a coolie worker. It is further submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236] , the income of a coolie for an accident in the year 2017 is fixed as ₹11,000/- and sought enhancement of income. Following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), in order to award just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to refix the monthly income at ₹11,000/-.
Loss of earnings:- The tribunal has taken a period of six months for awarding compensation towards loss of earnings. Since the monthly income has been re-fixed as ₹11,000/-, the compensation payable for loss of earnings for a period of six months is re-calculated as ₹66,000/- (11,000x6). The tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹54,000/- under the afore head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹12,000/- towards loss of earnings.
Attendance charges/bystander expenses:- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claimant was hospitalised for 103 days in-patient treatment and that the Tribunal has taken only ₹300/- per day for the said period while awarding bystander expenses. Considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2017, I am inclined to award bystander expenses by taking ₹450/- per day for 103 days. Therefore, the total compensation payable under the said head would come to ₹46,350/-. The tribunal had already awarded an amount of ₹30,900/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹15,450/- under the head bystander expenses.
Extra nourishment:- On a perusal of the award it is seen that the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹10,000/- under the head extra nourishment. Considering the year of the accident as well as the period of hospitalization, I am inclined to grant a consolidated amount of ₹40,000/- under the afore head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹30,000/- under the head Extra nourishment.
Loss of amenities:- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted though an amount of ₹1,00,000/- was claimed, the tribu
