Reliance General Insurance Company Limited V. Dr. Majo Kakkassery M

MACA/2608/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Reliance General Insurance Company Limited against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, in favor of Dr. Majo Kakkassery, who was injured in a road accident. The insurance company contested the income assessment and the disability percentage determined by the Tribunal. The accident occurred on January 25, 2017, when the offending vehicle collided with Dr. Kakkassery's car. The Tribunal had adopted Dr. Kakkassery's income based on his Income Tax Returns and assessed his disability at 18.89%. The insurance company argued that the income was excessively assessed and the disability percentage was incorrectly applied. However, the court found the Tribunal's decisions to be justified and based on valid evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 687900 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NAVEEN THOMAS
• Assessee Lawyers: P MATHEW; PREETHY NAIR
• Keywords: Disability; Income Assessment; Insurance Claim; Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1944 MACA NO. 2608 OF 2022 AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1314/2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE,AT 1ST FLOOR, VISHNU BUILDING, K.P.VALLON ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI- 682020 NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, LEGAL - CLAIMS, REGIONAL OFFICE, IMPERIAL TRADE CENTER, 4TH FLOOR, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI., PIN - 682035 BY ADVS. P.JACOB MATHEW PREETHY R. NAIR MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: DR.MAJO KAKKASSERY. M, AGED 46, S/O MONEY, KAKKASSERY HOUSE, THE NEST, 1ST AVENUE, INDIRA NAGAR, KUNNAMKULAM.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680503 BY ADV NAVEEN THOMAS THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA NO. 2608 OF 2022 2 JUDGMENT This appeal, filed by the Reliance Insurance Company Limited, impugns the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam (“Tribunal” for short) in OP(MV)No.1314 of 2017 on two grounds; namely, that the income adopted by it for the claimant – who was injured in a road accident which happened on 25.01.2017, when the offending vehicle collided against his car, in which his wife was also a passenger – is too excessive and that the percentile of disability adopted is in error. 2. Sri.Mathews Jacob – learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Preethy R.Nair, argued that the Tribunal has relied upon conjunctures to arrive at the notional income of the appellant to be Rs.34,796/-; while the MACA NO. 2608 OF 2022 3 percentile of disability of 18.89 was, in fact, only for a limb, namely his right leg, and not the whole body one. He argued that Ext.X1 – Medical Certificate would itself establish that same could not have been relied upon by the Tribunal, because there is no reason stated therein by the Medical Board in having arrived at the degree of disability. He thus prayed that this appeal be dismissed. 3. In response to the afore submissions, Sri.Naveen Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent claimant, pointed out that, on account of the accident, his client had suffered very serious injury in his right leg, with “lateral tibial condyle fracture, right ankle medical ligament injury”, as also the “fracture of the third fibula and left ankle lower third fibula”. He submitted that, because of this, his MACA NO. 2608 OF 2022 4 client is now unable to stand; and therefore, that his disability is not merely 18.89% but much more, particularly because he was a very successful dentist, now incapacitated from continuing his avocation because of the present physical limitations. He then predicated that the argument against Ext.X1 is rather unfortunate because, PW1 to PW3 - who are the doctors in the panel - had been examined and who had spoken graphically about the problems faced by his client. He concluded his submissions saying that the objections of the Insurance Company, against the income adopted by the Tribunal in favour of his client, is also untenable because, it is based exclusively on Ext.A14 series - Income Tax Return Assessments, which is the best standard to be adopted in such instances. He thus prayed that this appeal be MACA NO. 2608 OF 2022 5 dismissed. 4. When I evaluate the afore rival submissions and go through the evidence on record - copies of which have been made available to this Court by the learned counsel for the parties across the Bar, with the express consent that they can be acted upon, without dispute - I must say that I find substantial force in the submissions of Sri.Naveen Thomas – learned counsel for the claimant, because, as rightly pointed out by him, the learned Tribunal has adopted the income of the appellant to be Rs.34,796/-, going by the Income Tax Returns produced by him, namely Ext.A4 series, for the assessment years 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. The accident occurred on 25.01.2017 and the afore range of Income Tax Certificates certainly would cover the relevant MACA NO. 2608 OF 2022 6 period. I cannot, therefore, find any error in the Tribunal in having adopted the income shown in those certificates, since they are the most valid and safest ones to be relied upon. 5. Coming to the disability, certainly Ext.X1 certificate does not particularly say how the Medical Board had arrived at the percentile of 18.89, as the permanent disability of the claimant. However, the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 - who are the doctors in the Board, would lend sufficient amount of light on this. In fact, the Tribunal itself has recorded that PW1 is an Orthopaedic Specialist; while PW2 is a Vascular Surgeon. Further, PW3 is a General Surgery Specialist and the consultation of the doctors, which led to Ext.X1, has been marked in evidence as Ext.X2. The doctors are unison in their testimony that the claimant has been MACA NO. 2608 OF 2022 7 incapacitated from standing up for long duration of time; and that this will have a definite impact on his avocation as a Dentist, which requires him to be on his feet for longer periods, while doing surgery and such other procedure. Therefore, the contention of the appellant, that the Tribunal has accepted Ext.X1 without valid reason, can never be countenanced or approved. In the afore circumstances and since there are no other issues raised, I find no reason to entertain this appeal; and it is, therefore, dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS "