Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 21ST MAGHA, 1944 MACA NO. 3641 OF 2016 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(MV)NO.663/2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL MUVATTUPUZHA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: BONY JOSEPH AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, VETTOLICKAL HOUSE, EDAMARUK KARA, UDUMBANNUR VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.B.SANDEEP SMT.R.PRIYA SRI.B.SURJITH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 ELDHO VARGHESE S/O.VARGHESE, ONISSERITHOTTATHIL HOUSE KAYANADUL KARA, MARADY VILLAGE MUVATTUPUZHA-686730. 2 THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. XL-3599, 4TH FLOOR, ELIZABETH ALEXANDER MEMORIAL BUILDING, SHANMUKHAM ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, COCHIN-682031. BY ADV SRI.K.B.RAMANAND SMT.DHANYA BABU M.B.- SC THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..
JUDGMENT
The appellant, who is the petitioner in OP(MV)No.663/2013 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha (‘Tribunal’ for short), challenges the Award, on the ground that the compensation granted under some of the heads is exiguous.
2. Sri.M.B.Sandeep - learned counsel for the appellant,
argued that the Tribunal has erred in adopting his client’s notional monthly income to be only Rs.8,000/-, while Ext.A16 certificate shows that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He added that, the amount granted under the head ‘Permanent Disability’ is also, therefore, in error, because the same notional income has been adopted for such purpose.
3. In response, the learned Standing Counsel for the
Insurance Company - Smt.Dhanya Babu M.B., submitted that the Tribunal has not erred in adopting the notional income or in granting the compensation for ‘Permanent Disability’; and therefore prayed that this appeal be dismissed.
4. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the afore contentions of the Insurance Company because, going by ..3..
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has postulated that even in the case of a person with an unascertainable income in the year 2012 - when the accident occurred - the standard to be adopted is Rs.8,500/-. In the case at hand, Ext.A16 document, though not proved by the appellant through independent witnesses, shows atleast that he was working as a Supervisor, though the income shown therein perhaps may not be acceptable. Therefore, when Ramachandrappa (supra) fixes the income of a ‘Coolie’ as being Rs.8,500/- in the year 2012, I am sure that this Court will be justified in adopting the figure Rs.10,000/- in the case of a Supervisor working in a company. In such view and taking note of the submissions of the Insurance Company, that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal ought to have been 17 and not 18, in terms of Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)], I allow this appeal in the following manner.
a. The compensation awarded under the head ‘Loss of Earning’ is revised to Rs.50,000/-, instead of Rs.40,000/-. b. The compensation awarded under the head ‘Permanent Disability’ is revised to Rs.2,04,000/-, instead of ..4.. Rs.1,72,800/-, taking the notional income of the appellant as Rs.10,000/- per month and adopting the multiplier 17. In all other heads, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal will remain unaltered. Needless to say, the appellant will be entitled to recover the compensation, as enhanced by this Court from the Insurance Company, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, as ordered by the Tribunal, from the date of claim until it is realised. The appellant will also be entitled to proportionate costs as awarded by the Tribunal on the enhanced amounts. However while computing the interest 255 days will be reduced. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE ACR