Ramachandran S/O Annamala V. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

MACA/2325/2017

AI Insights

The case involves Ramachandran, the appellant, who suffered injuries including the amputation of three fingers in an accident involving an auto rickshaw and a KSRTC bus. He claimed that the injuries resulted in a 21% disability affecting his ability to operate a Jacky Hammer, a tool used in his quarry business. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal initially assessed his disability and compensation, which he appealed, seeking higher compensation on various grounds including higher assessment of disability and income. The Insurance Company contested the claims, pointing out the lack of substantial evidence regarding the appellant's employment and income. The High Court, while upholding the Tribunal's decision on disability percentage, agreed to enhance the compensation for loss of earnings based on a notional income assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798647 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236], National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (2017)16 SCC 680, Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Another [(2011) 1 SCC 343]
• Laws Referred To: Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P JAYASANKAR; THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL
• Assessee Lawyers: P V BABY; A N SANTHOSH
• Keywords: Functional Disability; Income Assessment; Motor Accident; Disability Compensation
• Section: 924/2014

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 18TH BHADRA, 1942 MACA.No.2325 OF 2017(E) AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 924/2014 DATED 15-03-2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , IRINJALAKUDA APPELLANT: RAMACHANDRAN S/O ANNAMALA,ERVATHODY LAKSHAMVEEDU COLONY,KANNIYARKODE P.O., THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT: THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. OTTAPALAM-679101. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR R1 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA No.2325/2017 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 09th day of September, 2020 The appellant suffered injuries when the auto rickshaw he was travelling in, overturned and hit a KSRTC Bus on 25.06.2014. He suffered amputation of three fingers. The appellant claims that he was the owner of a tractor in which he had been carrying a Jacky Hammer for use in a quarry; which he himself operated. He suffers total disability insofar as avocation of use of Jacky Hammer due to the amputation of his fingers. The appellant claims that despite the disability having been assessed at 21% he should have been granted more. The appellant also submits that the income claimed was Rs.30000/-, but however, the Tribunal adopted only Rs.6000/-. The appellant claims enhancement on all heads. 2. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company points out that there was absolutely no MACA No.2325/2017 3 evidence adduced as to the employment. Only the RC Book of the tractor was produced. In such circumstances, there could be no disability assessed is the argument. The appellant though claims that he was the driver/owner of the tractor, did not produce a valid licence to drive the tractor. There is also no evidence to show that he owns a Jacky Hammer, which is a costly equipment, the bill of which could have been produced before the Tribunal. 3. As far as the income claimed there is no evidence produced; not even a return filed before the income-tax authorities. The appellant is the owner of a Tractor and though he has not substantiated his claim of being the driver too, can in any event rent out the vehicle. A coolie was fixed with a notional income of Rs.4,500/- per month in the year 2004, in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also recognised the principle that there would be incremental enhancement in the case MACA No.2325/2017 4 of even self-employed individuals in the un-organised sector (National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (2017)16 SCC 680). With respect to an unspecified job of a coolie considering the increase in cost of living and economic advancements over the years, it can be safely assumed that even a coolie would be eligible for incremental addition of at least Rs.500/- in every subsequent year. Even a coolie would be entitled to Rs.9500/- in the year 2014. Hence the notional income of the appellant, who owns a tractor, can be adopted at Rs.12000/-. 4. However, in calculating the disability this Court is of the opinion that the submission made on behalf of the Insurance Company has also to be given due weight. The appellant though claimed to be a Tractor driver did not produce his licence. He also did not produce anything to show his possession and ownership of Jacky Hammer. The disability suffered though of 21% the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Another [(2011) 1 SCC 343] said that the functional disability has to be assessed. Considering the MACA No.2325/2017 5 functional disability it cannot be said that the appellant looses the entire income he received prior to the accident due to amputation of his fingers. In such circumstances the disability need be computed only @ 21% computing half of the income earlier earned by the appellant, as has been done by the Tribunal. The compensation for permanent disability suffered, assessed by the Tribunal is upheld. However, there can be an enhancement insofar as loss of earnings which was assessed for six months. Considering the notional income of Rs.12000/- the same has to be increased to Rs.72000/-, i.e, an increase of Rs.36000/-. The enhancement is confined to Rs.36000/-. MACA allowed. The payment as per the award and the modification made herein shall be made within three months with interest as directed by the Tribunal @ 9% from the date of application, after deducting the amounts already paid. The appellant shall produce a copy of a cancelled cheque of the Bank Account in a Nationalized Bank in his name, with copy of AADHAAR or acceptable identification, before the Tribunal within one month, MACA No.2325/2017 6 with copy to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company shall credit the amounts through NEFT/RTGS mode to the said account, failing which the Tribunal shall proceed with the recovery in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Sd/- Jma K.Vinod Chandran, Judge "