Kerala High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Avathan Veettil Ravindranathan And ... on 15 February, 1989
Equivalent citations: II(1989)ACC75, 1990ACJ231
JUDGMENT P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.
1. This appeal by the 3rd respondent insurer is against the award of compensation to the claimant by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident at about 12.30 noon on 4.11.1976.
2. The claimant was riding a motor cycle. A bus KLP 4183 belonging to the first respondent and driven by the 2nd respondent came from the opposite direction and hit the motor cycle that the claimant was riding. The claimant suffered serious injuries. He had to be hospitalised and had to undergo four successive operations. He has also suffered permanent disability to the extent of 50 per cent. The claim for compensation was for Rs. 50,000/-. The Tribunal has allowed a total compensation of Rs. 27,000/- and has directed the insurer to pay the compensation. The insurer has come up in appeal. The claimant has filed a memorandum of cross-objection.
3. The appellant has challenged the finding that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. The quantum of damages awarded is also challenged as excessive. Both these contentions are not open to the insurer, in view of the specific provisions of Section 96 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. There is, therefore, no merit in the appeal at the instance of the third respondent insurer.
4. Counsel for the claimant in support of the memorandum of cross-objection submits that the compensation awarded is grossly inadequate, considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and the loss of future earnings due to the permanent disability suffered by him. The claimant was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident. The court below has fixed his monthly income at Rs. 300/- and for the reason that he had suffered a permanent disability of 50 per cent, the loss of earnings per year is fixed at Rs. 1,800/-. In determining the compensation for loss of earnings the court below has allowed only 10 times the yearly loss of earnings due to the disability. The appellant was a licensed wireman. He would have worked atleast for 30 years if he had not been disabled due to the accident. The Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bairagarh, Bhopal v. Sudhakar, 1977 ACJ 290 (SC), states at page 292:
A method of assessing damages, usually followed in England, as appears from Mallett v. McMonagle 1969 ACJ 312 (HL, England), is to calculate the net pecuniary loss upon an annual basis and to 'arrive at the total award by multiplying the figure assessed as the amount of the annual 'dependency' by a number of 'year's purchase', that is, the number of years the benefit was expected to last, taking into the consideration the imponderable factors in fixing either the multiplier or the multiplicand. The husband may not be dependent on the wife's income, the basis of assessing the damages payable to the husband for the death of his wife would be similar. Here, the lady had 30 years of service before her when she died. We have found that the claimant's loss reasonably works out to Rs. 50/- a month, i.e., Rs. 600/- a year. Keeping in mind all the relevant facts and contingencies and taking 20 as the suitable multiplier, the figure comes to Rs. 12,000/-. The Tribunal's award cannot therefore be challenged as too low though it was not based on proper grounds. In a decision of the Kerala High Court relied on by the appellant P.B. Kader v. Thatchamma AIR 1970 Ker 241, to which one of us was a party, the same method of assessing compensation was adopted.
5. Adopting the same method, compensation for loss of earning should be fixed at 20 times the annual loss. That works out at Rs. 36,000/- instead of the Rs. 18,000/- allowed by the lower court. We, therefore, enhance the compensation payable to the claimant to Rs. 45,000/- instead of Rs. 27,000/- allowed by the court below. The court below has allowed only 6 per cent interest from the date of presentation of the petition. Considering the present rate of interest on fixed deposits in nationalised banks, we are of the view that the claimant is entitled to interest at 10 per cent per annum from the date of presentation of the petition until realisation.
6. The appeal is dismissed with costs. The memorandum of cross-objections is allowed as indicated above.
Issue photocopy on usual terms.