Kerala High Court
T.K.Latha vs Royal Sundaram Aliance Company Ltd on 19 February, 2025
MACA. No.3850/2018 & Cross Objection 58/2019
1
2025:KER:17248
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 30TH MAGHA, 1946
MACA NO. 3850 OF 2018
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED IN OPMV NO.673 OF 2013 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL THALASSERY
APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT
ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
CHENNAI, NOW REPRESENTED BY THEIR ZONAL HEAD,
SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, CLUB HOUSE ROAD,
ANNASALAI, CHENNAI-600 002.
BY ADV P.JACOB MATHEW-SC
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3
1 T.K. LATHA
W/O.PRADEEP KUMAR, SECRETARY, DEEPNA VIHAR HOUSE,
ERANHOLI P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN-670 107.
2 A.ABDUL BASHEER,
S/O.MIDU, THACHERIYAKATH, VALAPATTANAM P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 010.
3 MUHAMMED SHABEER.O.,
S/O.ABOOBACKER.K.P., OLIYAN HOUSE, VALAPATTANAM
P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 010.
MACA. No.3850/2018 & Cross Objection 58/2019
2
2025:KER:17248
4 IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, AAL-RAHABA ARCODE, PUSHPA JUNCTION,
KALLAI ROAD, CALICUT, PIN-673 003.
BY ADVS.
ARUN BOSE.D
Dr.ELIZABETH VARKEY-SC
SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN
SRI.AKHIL S.VISHNU
K.VISWAN(K/416/1993)
P.S.POOJA(K/1664/2023)
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. T.P. SAJID -R2 AND R3
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 19.02.2025, ALONG WITH CO.58/2019, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA. No.3850/2018 & Cross Objection 58/2019
3
2025:KER:17248
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 30TH MAGHA, 1946
CO NO. 58 OF 2019
AGAINST THE AWARD IN MACA NO.3850 OF 2018 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
CROSS OBJECTOR/CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT
T.K.LATHA
AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.PRADEEP KUMAR,
RESIDING AT DEEPNA VIHAR (H)
ERANHOLI POST, THALASSERY TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV P.N.SUKUMARAN
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NOS.2, 3 AND 4
1 ROYAL SUNDARAM ALIANCE COMPANY LTD.
HEAD OFFICE 46, WHITER ROAD, CHENNAI,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR ZONAL HEAD,
SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, CLUB HOUSE ROAD,
ANNASALAI, CHENNAI- 600002.
2 A.ABDUL BASHEER,
S/O.MIDU, THACHERIYAKATH, VALAPATTANAM P O,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670010.
3 MUHAMMED SHABEER.O,
S/O.ABOOBACKER K.P., OLIYAN(H),
VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR DISTRICT- 670010.
MACA. No.3850/2018 & Cross Objection 58/2019
4
2025:KER:17248
4 IFFCO TOKYO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, AAL-RAHABA, ARCODE,
PUSHPA JUNCTION, KALLAYI ROAD,
CALICUT, PIN 673003.
BY ADV P.JACOB MATHEW-SC
THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 19.02.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.3850/2018, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA. No.3850/2018 & Cross Objection 58/2019
5
2025:KER:17248
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2025 The Respondent No.5 in O.P.(M.V.) No.673/2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thalassery is the appellant herein. The petitioner in the OP is the cross objector. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal).
2. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 2.9.2012. According to the petitioner, on 2.9.2012, while she was travelling in a Nano car, bearing registration No.KL-58E-6840, driven by the supplemental 4th respondent, an Innova car bearing registration No.KL- 13Y-3399 driven by the 2 nd respondent, which came from the opposite direction hit against the Nano car and as a result of which, the petitioner sustained serious injuries. It is alleged that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both the drivers.
MACA. No.3850/2018 & Cross Objection 58/2019 6 2025:KER:17248
3. The 1st respondent is the owner, the 2nd respondent is the driver and 3rd respondent is the insurer of the Innova car. 4th respondent is the owner cum driver and 5th respondent is the insurer of the Nano car. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.30,00,000/-.
4. The 3rd respondent/ insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident, but disputing the policy as well as negligence on the part of the driver of the Innova car. The 5th respondent/ insurer filed a written statement, admitting the accident, as well as valid policy, but disputing negligence on the part of the driver of the Nano car.
5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PWs 1 to 3 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A17, X1, X2, B1 and B2.
6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the supplementary 4 th respondent, awarded a total compensation of Rs.25,07,650/- and directed the 5 th respondent namely, the insurer of the Nano car to pay the same.
7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the MACA. No.3850/2018 & Cross Objection 58/2019 7 2025:KER:17248 Tribunal, the Respondent No.5 preferred this appeal.
8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
9. Heard Sri.P. Jacob Mathew, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent/appellant, and Sri. P.N. Sukumaran, the learned Counsel for the petitioner/cross objector.
10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the petitioner was working as Secretary in a press, earning Rs.8,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.7,000-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable.
11. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram MACA. No.3850/2018 & Cross Objection 58/2019 8 2025:KER:17248 Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2012 will come to Rs.8,500/-.Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.8,500/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. Since the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2012 will come to Rs.8,500/-, in order to award just and reasonable compensation, in the light of a dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa (supra), the notional income of the petitioner is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.8,500/-.
12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries:
"(a) Fracture on right hip joint (b) Dislocation of right hip joint (c) Fracture left femur (d) Fracture on right and left acetabulam (e) Fracture on right patella (f) Right renal injury (g) Multiple rib fracture bilateral with haemopneumothorax (h) Fracture on sacrum
(i)Lacerated wound right bid toe."
13. As per Exhibit X2 disability certificate issued by the medical MACA. No.3850/2018 & Cross Objection 58/2019 9 2025:KER:17248 board, the petitioner suffered 40% permanent physical disability. The Tribunal, has accepted the permanent physical disability of the petitioner as such and hence, I do not find any grounds to disbelieve the same. Therefore, the permanent physical disability of the petitioner is accepted as 40%, as fixed by the Tribunal.
14. In the accident, the petitioner sustained very serious injuries including six fractures and she was treated as inpatient for a total period of 119 days and in the meantime she had undergone 11 surgeries and after the last surgery, she was discharged from the hospital on 10.4.2014, as revealed from Exhibit A10(J).
15. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 42 years. Therefore, 25% of the monthly income is to be added towards future prospects, as held in the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and the multiplier to be applied is 14, as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. In the above circumstances, the loss of disability will come to Rs.7,14,000/-.
MACA. No.3850/2018 & Cross Objection 58/2019 10 2025:KER:17248
16. The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the Tribunal has awarded loss of earnings for a period of 24 months, which according to the learned counsel for the appellant, is on the higher side. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner/cross objector would argue that the petitioner had undergone treatment for about two years and as such the compensation awarded on the head loss of earning is on the lower side. As I have already noted above, the petitioner had undergone 11 surgeries and she was discharged after the last surgery only on 10.4.2014, about 19 months after the accident. In the above circumstances, considering the entire facts, I hold that towards 'loss of earning', she is eligible for income for a period of 20 months, which will come to Rs.1,70,000/- (8500x20).
17. Towards the head 'pain and sufferings', the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,50,000/- Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.75,000/- was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side.
18. The petitioner sustained very serious injuries in the accident MACA. No.3850/2018 & Cross Objection 58/2019 11 2025:KER:17248 including six fractures and was treated as inpatient for a total period of 119 days. She had undergone 11 surgeries. Because of the injuries sustained, the percentage of disability suffered and the length of treatment undergone by the petitioner, I hold that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the heads 'pain and sufferings' and 'loss of amenities of life' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively.
19. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable.
20. As per Exhibit B2, the police filed final report against the 4 th respondent, the driver of the Nano car. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there was contributory negligence from the side of the Innova car also. However, in this case, there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the above contention. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the 4th respondent. MACA. No.3850/2018 & Cross Objection 58/2019 12 2025:KER:17248
21. Therefore, the petitioners/Cross Objectors are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.28,28,250/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference:
Sl.
No. Head of Claim Amount awarded by Amount Awarded in
Tribunal (in Rs.) Appeal (in Rs.)
1 Loss of earning 1,68,000/- 1,70,000/-
2 Transport to hospital 50,000/- 50,000/-
3 Extra nourishment 24,000/- 24,000/-
4 Damage to clothing and articles 1,000/- 1,000/-
5 Bystander's expenses 1,79,250/- 1,79,250/-
6 Medical expenses 10,90,000/- 10,90,000/-
7 Future treatment expenses 3,00,000/- 3,00,000/-
8 Pain and suffering 1,50,000/- 2,00,000/-
9 Compensation for disability 4,70,400/- 7,14,000/-
10 Loss of amenities 75,000/- 1,00,000/-
Total 25,07,650/- 28,28,250/-
Enhanced Rs.3,20,600/-
20. In the result, this Appeal and cross-objection are disposed of directing Respondent No.5 to deposit a total sum of Rs.28,28,250/-
(Rupees twenty eight lakh twenty eight thousand two hundred and fifty only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. MACA. No.3850/2018 & Cross Objection 58/2019 13 2025:KER:17248 On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the petitioner, excluding court fee payable, if any, without delay, as per rules.
Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE sou.