AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
178 paragraphs · 1,296 wordsDr. Kauser Edappagath, J
The claimant at the Tribunal is the appellant. He challenges the quantum of compensation awarded to him vide the impugned award.
The claimant met with an accident on 14/5/2015 at about 7.45 p.m. He was riding the motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KL-41/G 4346 through the Aluva Palace Road. At that time, the car bearing Regn.No.KL-7/ CA 319 owned by the first respondent and driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motor cycle driven by the claimant and he sustained injuries. The third respondent is the insurer of the car. The claimant sustained serious injuries in the incident as described in Ext.A7 series discharge certificates and Ext.A11 wound certificate. He was hospitalised for a total period of 53 days. He claimed a total compensation of ₹20,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded ₹13,31,525/-. Dissatisfied with the said award, the claimant preferred this appeal.
I have heard Sri.A.N.Santhosh, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Lal George, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company.
According to the claimant, at the time of the accident, he was working as supervisor in Kaitharan Glass and Plywoods, Aluva and was drawing a monthly salary of ₹30,000/-. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent. The said finding is not under challenge. Admittedly the car was insured with the third respondent and the policy was in force at the time of the accident. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of ₹13,31,525/- under the following different heads.
Sl. No
Head of Claim
Amount claimed
Amount
awarded
1
Loss of earnings
₹20,00,000/-
₹90,000/-
2
Partial loss of earning
₹10,00,000/-
Nil
3
Transport to hospital
₹2,00,000/-
₹5,000/-
4
Extra nourishment
₹5,00,000/-
₹2,500/-
5
Payment to bystander
₹10,00,000/-
₹13,250/-
6
Damage to clothes
₹1,00,000/-
₹1,000/-
7
Medical expenses
₹10,00,000/-
₹4,23,575/-
8
Pain and suffering
₹10,00,000/-
₹60,000/-
9
Loss of amenities etc.
₹15,00,000/-
₹45,000/-
10
Disfiguration
₹5,00,000/-
Nil
11
Permanent disability
₹15,00,000/-
₹6,91,200/-
12
Loss-expectation of life
₹10,00,000/-
Nil
13
Loss of earning power
₹10,00,000/-
Nil
Total
₹1,23,00,000/- limited to ₹20,00,000/-
₹13,31,525/-
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under each head is very low. I shall deal with the amount awarded by the Tribunal under each head. Under the head "Loss of Earnings", the Tribunal awarded ₹90,000/-. The said amount was arrived at taking the notional income as ₹9,000/- per month. Even though the claimant alleged that he was working as Supervisor in Kaitharan Glass and Plywoods and earning ₹30,000/- per month, it was not substantiated. True, an employment certificate was produced and marked as Ext.A10. It says that his monthly salary is ₹15,000/-per month. Ext.A10 was not proved in accordance with law. Thus, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹9,000/- per month. Applying the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 3 SCC 236], the notional income has to be fixed at ₹10,000/- per month. Hence, under this head, the claimant is entitled to ₹1,00,000/-. Under the head "Transportation to Hospital" only ₹5,000/- was granted though the claim was ₹2,00,000/-. There was hospitalisation for a period of 53 days. The claimant was hospitalised on three different occasions. Considering this aspect, I am of the view that the claimant is entitled to ₹15,000/- under this head. So also, the "Extra Nourishment" granted appears to be very low. The Tribunal awarded only ₹2,500/-. I am of the view that it has to be enhanced to ₹5,000/-. The compensation awarded under the head "Payment to Bystander", "Damage to Clothes" and "Medical Expenses" do not call for any interference. Under the head "Pain and Suffering", the Tribunal awarded only ₹60,000/- as against the claim of ₹10,00,000/-. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and the days of hospitalisation, I am of the view that it can be enhanced to₹80,000/-. Similarly, the "Loss of Amenities and Inconvenience" can be enhanced to ₹60,000/- from ₹45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The learned counsel for the claimant, next, vehemently argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head "Permanent Disability" is very low. The permanent disability was assessed at 40%. According to the learned counsel, the claimant is entitled to an additional 40% of notional income towards future prospects for the purpose of computing compensation for permanent disability. In support of his argument, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Karthik Subramanian v. P.Sarath Babu and Another (2021 ACJ 993) and of the Division Bench of this Court in Manager, Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Suja George and Others (MACA No.1860/2015 decided on 27th February, 2017). In Karthik Subramanian (supra), the injured therein sustained 40% disability in the accident. The Apex Court taking note of its earlier judgment in Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande (2017 ACJ 979) awarded the compensation for future prospects and advancement in life and career as well applying the multiplier method. In the Manager, Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), it was contended by the insurer that in a case where notional income was adopted, the Tribunal was not justified in adding 30% towards future prospects for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head of permanent disability. In that case, the permanent disability assessed was only 8%. Still, the Division Bench awarded 30% of the notional income towards future prospects. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh and Others v. Rajbir Singh and Others [(2013) 9 SCC 54], it was held that there was no illegality in adopting and taking the required percentage of notional income towards future prospects for the purpose of computing compensation for permanent disability. In Rajesh (supra), it was held that in case of self employed persons or persons engaged on fixed wages, 30% of increase in the notional income need to be given. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi (AIR 2007 SC 5157), the Constitution Bench held that in a case where the deceased was below the age of 40 years and self employed, while determining the income, an addition of 40% of the established income should be awarded. Applying the dictum laid down in the above cases, I am of the view that 40% has to be added to the notional income of ₹10,000/- fixed towards future prospects. Thus, under the head "Permanent Disability", the claimant is entitled to a total sum of ₹10,75,200/-(14000x12x16x40%). Hence, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under each head has to be reassessed as follows:
Sl.
Head of Claim
Amount
Amount
Amount
Difference
No.
claimed
awarded by
reassessed
the Tribubal
1
Loss of earnings
₹20,00,000/-
₹90,000/-
₹1,00,000/-
₹10,000/-
2
Partial
loss of
₹10,00,000/-
Nil
--
earning
3
Transport
to
₹2,00,000/-
₹5,000/-
₹15,000/-
₹10,000/-
hospital
4
Extra nourishment
₹5,00,000/-
₹2,500/-
₹5,000/-
₹2,500/-
5
Payment
to
₹10,00,000/-
₹13,250/-
Not
--
bystander
interfered
6
Damage
to
₹1,00,000/-
₹1,000/-
"
--
clothes
7
Medical expenses
₹10,00,000/-
₹4,23,575/-
"
--
8
Pain and suffering
₹10,00,000/-
₹60,000/-
₹80,000/-
₹20,000/-
9
Loss of amenities
₹15,00,000/-
₹45,000/-
₹60,000/-
₹15,000/-
etc.
10
Disfiguration
₹5,00,000/-
Nil
--
--
11
Permanent
₹15,00,000/-
₹6,91,200/-
₹10,75,200/-
₹3,84,000/-
disability
12
Loss-expectation
₹10,00,000/-
Nil
--
--
of life
13
Loss of
earning
₹10,00,000/-
Nil
--
--
power
Total
₹1,23,00,000/-
₹13,31,525/-
₹13,35,200/-
₹4,41,500/-
limited
to
₹20,00,000/-
Thus, the appellant is entitled to an additional compensation of ₹4,41,500/- (Rupees Four lakhs forty one thousand and five hundred only). The respondent is directed to deposit the said amount along with interest and proportionate costs as ordered by the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appeal is allowed as above.