Kerala High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Rahul Immanuel Thomas on 10 January, 2025
2025:KER:1632
MACA No.402 & 1246 of 2022
..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 20TH POUSHA, 1946
MACA NO. 402 OF 2022
OPMV NO.1416 OF 2017 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
ELIZABETH ALEXANDER MEMORIAL BUILDING, MARINE DRIVE
P.O., KOCHI - 31, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
LEGAL- CLAIMS, REGIONAL OFFICE, VISHNU BUILDING, K.P.
VALLUN ROAD, KADAVANTHRA P.O., KOCHI - 682 020.
BY ADVS.
MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
P.JACOB MATHEW
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
RAHUL IMMANUEL THOMAS
AGED 24, S/O. THOMAS, EDAMANA HOUSE, PUTHUNAGARAM,
VELI, FORT KOCHI P.O., KOCHI - 682 001.
BY ADVS.
A.R.NIMOD
M.A.AUGUSTINE(K/000511/2005)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 08.11.2024, ALONG WITH MACA.1246/2022, THE COURT ON 10.01.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:1632
MACA No.402 & 1246 of 2022
..2..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 20TH POUSHA, 1946
MACA NO. 1246 OF 2022
OPMV NO.1416 OF 2017 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
RAHUL IMMANUEL THOMAS, AGED 25 YEARS
S/O THOMAS, EDAMANA HOUSE, PUTHUNAGARAM, VELI.P.O,
KOCHI, PIN - 682001
BY ADVS.
A.R.NIMOD
M.A.AUGUSTINE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 K.A.SHANU
S/O ABDUL GAFFOOR, KAREKKATT HOUSE, ERIYAD.P.O,
AZHIKODE, KODUNGALLUR, THRISUR, PIN - 680666
2 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
ELIZABETH ALEXANDER MEMORIAL BUILDING, MARINE DRIVE
P.O, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER., PIN -
682031
BY ADV LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 08.11.2024, ALONG WITH MACA.402/2022, THE COURT ON 10.01.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:1632
MACA No.402 & 1246 of 2022
..3..
JUDGMENT
These appeals arise from the impugned award dated 30.09.2021
in OP(MV) No.1416 of 2017 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Ernakulam. MACA No. 402 of 2022 is filed by the insurer alleging that
the compensation awarded by the tribunal is excessive, whereas MACA
No.1246 of 2022 is filed by the claimant dissatisfied with the quantum
of compensation awarded by the tribunal.
2. Since the parties and the cause of action are the same, the
appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common
judgment. For brevity, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed
before the tribunal.
3. The case of the claimant is that on 16.04.2017, while the
claimant, aged 20 years, was pillion riding on a scooter bearing
Reg.No.KL-43/G-5064 along Thevara - Thoppumpady road, a car
bearing Reg.No.KL-47/F-5537 driven by the first respondent in a rash
and negligent manner, hit against the scooter, whereby he sustained
serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total
compensation of ₹20,00,000/-.
2025:KER:1632
MACA No.402 & 1246 of 2022
..4..
4. The first respondent remained ex parte before the tribunal.
The respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy
coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and
quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A11
and Ext.X1 were marked on the side of the claimant. No evidence was
adduced by the respondents. The tribunal, after analysing the
pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on
account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and
awarded a sum of ₹16,31,635/- as compensation under different heads
against the second respondent being the insurer. It is challenging this,
the claimant as well as the insurer has come up in appeal.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the claimant and the
learned Standing Counsel for the insurer.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer challenged the
compensation awarded by the tribunal mainly under four heads, viz.,
(1) Pain & Suffering, (2) Loss of Amenities & Enjoyment in Life, (3)
Marriage Prospects and (4) Attendant at Home. Even before the
tribunal, the dispute was with respect to the quantum of compensation
claimed. On the other hand, the claimant sought enhancement of
compensation towards functional disability.
2025:KER:1632
MACA No.402 & 1246 of 2022
..5..
7. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submitted that
as per Ext.X1, the disability assessed by the Medical Board of the
Government Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, is only
41%, however, the tribunal awarded excessive amounts of ₹1,00,000/-
and ₹75,000/- towards pain & suffering and loss of amenities
respectively. On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the claimant
sustained the following injuries:
(1) Right C5, C7 brachial plexus injury
(2) D5 anterior wedge fracture
(3) C7 left lamina fracture
(4) Right scapula fracture
(5) Right hemothorax
(6) First rib fracture right
(7) Abrasion on face, shoulder & neck
(8) Lacerated wound on nostrils.
Further, on 08.11.2024, the claimant appeared in person before this
Court. On seeing the claimant as well as on a consideration of the
injuries sustained by him, I find that the compensation awarded by the
tribunal under the heads, pain & suffering and loss of amenities, is just,
fair and reasonable, which does not call for any interference.
2025:KER:1632
MACA No.402 & 1246 of 2022
..6..
8. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submitted that
the compensation awarded towards marriage prospects is excessive. As
already stated, the claimant, who was aged only 20 years at the time of
the accident, was seriously injured in the accident and he sustained
41% disability as per Ext.X1 disability certificate issued by the Medical
Board of the Government Medical College Hospital,
Thiruvananthapuram. The tribunal awarded an amount of ₹75,000/-
towards marriage prospects. On a consideration of the facts of the case
and also considering the age of the appellant, I find that the
compensation awarded by the tribunal towards marriage prospects
does not deserve any interference since the injuries sustained would
certainly affect his marriage prospects.
9. The next challenge by the insurer is against the
compensation of ₹50,000/- awarded by the tribunal towards Attendant
at home. On a perusal of the impugned award, it is seen that due to the
injuries sustained, the claimant had to undergo a prolonged treatment
and even after discharge from the hospital, he was unable to carry out
his day-to-day activities and do things of his own. His mother was
taking care of him. Considering the afore facts, the tribunal awarded
the compensation of ₹50,000/- towards the attendant at home. I do not
find any reason to interfere with the same.
2025:KER:1632
MACA No.402 & 1246 of 2022
..7..
10. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that though
41% disability was assessed as per Ext.X1, no income was added
towards future prospects. On a perusal of the impugned award, I find
that this is a fit case where 40% future prospects has to be added to
the notional income for awarding compensation towards disability
since the claimant is assessed to have 41% disability, which is not in
dispute. Further, the learned counsel for the claimant sought
enhancement towards functional disability, stating that though the
whole body disability was assessed by the Medical Board as 41%, the
tribunal has not taken functional disability after assessing permanent
disability. However, I am not inclined to accept the said contention
since I propose to add 40% of the notional income towards future
prospects for assessing compensation towards disability. Further, on a
consideration of the injuries of the claimant, I am not satisfied that
there is any reason to increase the percentage of disability assessed by
the Medical Board. The notional income fixed by the tribunal was
₹11,000/- per month. Thus, after adding 40% of the notional income
towards future prospects, the amount would be arrived at ₹15,400/-
(11000 + 4400). Accordingly, following the judgments in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)] and Sarla
Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the
2025:KER:1632
MACA No.402 & 1246 of 2022
..8..
claimant will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹13,63,824/-
(15400 x 12 x 18 x 41%) towards disability. Hence, there will be an
additional amount of ₹3,89,664/- under this head.
11. Though the insurer as well as the claimant challenged
compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads as well, on a
perusal of the records available and the award passed, I am not
inclined to interfere with the same since it appears to be just and
reasonable.
Accordingly, the following orders are issued:
a) MACA No. 402 of 2022 is dismissed.
b) MACA No. 1246 of 2022 is allowed in part and the impugned
award is modified, awarding the claimant an additional
compensation of ₹3,89,664/- (Rupees three lakh eighty nine
thousand six hundred and sixty four only) over and above the
compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 8% per
annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate
costs. The respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount
together with interest and costs within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
c) The claimant shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR
2025:KER:1632
MACA No.402 & 1246 of 2022
..9..
Card and bank details before the insurer within a period of one
month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit
as ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it
shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said
amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the
entire amount shall be disbursed to the claimant at the earliest in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
bka/-
