High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-03-25Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation a...

B. Rema Devi v. Keshavankutty Nair and The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.1941 OF 2011

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2021-03-25
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed in part. Notional income adjusted to Rs.4,500 per month; awards for pain and suffering, permanent disability, and other heads revised; total enhanced compensation of Rs.4,01,211 with Rs.24,089 additional payable on top of the Tribunal’s award, with interest at 7.5% per annum and proportionate costs. The 2nd respondent to deposit the enhanced amount before the Tribunal within two months from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, and the Tribunal to disburse accordingly.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation and directions for payment to be complied with by the Tribunal.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

B. Rema Devi

Respondents

Keshavankutty Nair
The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Bepin Vijayan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Joy George, SC, K.S.R.T.C.
• Sri. P.C. Chacko (Parathanam)

Case Synopsis & Summary

On 14 December 2003, the appellant, a teacher, was travelling in a Maruthi car when a KSRTC bus (Reg. No. KL-15/4192) driven rashly struck the car on the Alappuzha–Ernakulam NH. She sustained multiple injuries, underwent major surgery, and remained hospitalized for two months and fifteen days, incurring substantial medical expenses. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, partly allowed the petition in 2010, awarding Rs. 3,77,122 with interest at 7.5% per annum and costs. Dissatisfied, the appellant challenged the quantum, asserting that the award did not reflect the gravity of injuries, impairment of earnings, or the true extent of damages; liability of the KSRTC driver was undisputed, with the 1st respondent ex parte and the 2nd respondent contesting negligence of the car driver while arguing that the claimed amounts were excessive. The appeal is framed under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, invoking Supreme Court guidance on “just compensation” as fairness, reasonableness and equitability (Pranay Sethi) and notional income standards (Ramachandrappa, Syed Sadiq). Relying on the accident date and her profession, the court refixes notional income at Rs. 4,500/month, recalculates losses, increases pain and suffering, and awards enhanced damages for permanent disability. The result is an overall uplift in compensation and an order for payment of the enhanced amount with interest. The appeal is allowed in part, with further payment and costs directed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must be fair, reasonable and equitable
Fairness, reasonableness and equitability as guiding standards for determining compensation

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal’s quantum is inadequately remedial for the injuries sustained and does not reflect the true loss of earnings, medical expenses, and non-pecuniary damages. She asserts that notional income should reflect her capacity as a teacher and seeks higher compensation for pain and suffering, permanent disability, disfigurement, medical expenses, transport, bystander costs, and nourishment, among others. She relies on established precedents on just compensation (including notional income norms and high courts’ recalibration of damages) to bolster the claim for enhancement.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents concede liability of the KSRTC driver but argue that the head of damages claimed is excessive. The 1st respondent was ex parte, while the 2nd respondent contends that the car-driver’s negligence caused the accident and disputes the quantum of damages. They rely on contesting the assessed heads of damage and emphasize that the Tribunal’s award should be upheld where just and reasonable, or that quantum should be reconsidered within the scope of evidence and statutory framework.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Cited to anchor the 'just compensation' principle under Section 168 MVA 1988 as requiring fairness, reasonableness and equitability.
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Cited for notional income benchmarks; appropriating Rs.4,500 for a Coolie Worker as a basis for calculation.
Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd.	(2014) 2 SCC 735	Positive	Cited for notional income standards (vegetable vendor) and related principles in determining compensation.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against B. Rema Devi v. Keshavankutty Nair and The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **MACA.No.1941 OF 2011** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)1470/2005 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **B.REMA DEVI, D/O.RAJAMMA, REMA NIVAS, MEKKAD P.O, ANGAMALAY, ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.BEPIN VIJAYAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 KESHAVANKUTTY NAIR, S/O.PADMANABHA PILLAI, CHURATTU KOTTAYIL, THAZHATHUKUR, MALAYAM P.O, WARD NO.10, VELAVURKAL (P), NEYYATTINKARA (T), TRIVANDRUM (DIST). PIN 679 131.** **2 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY I TS MANAGING DIRECTOR, FORT, TRIVANDRUM. PIN 695 001.** **R1-2 BY SRI.JOY GEORGE, SC, K.S.R.T.C. R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-03-2021, THE COURT ON 25-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.No.1941 OF 2011 2** ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant was the petitioner in OP(MV) No.1470 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha. The respondents in the claim petition are the respondents in the appeal. 2. The relevant facts in the claim petition, for the determination of the appeal, are: on 14.12.2003 while the appellant was travelling in a Maruthi Car, when the vehicle reached the South of SN College, Cherthala, on the Alappuzha - Ernakulam NH road, a KSRTC Super Fast bus bearing Reg.No.KL-15/4192 (offending vehicle), driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the Maruthi Car. The appellant sustained serious injuries and was taken to the KVM Hospital, Cherthala. Thereafter, as her condition worsened, she was shifted to the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam, where she underwent a major surgery. The appellant was treated as an inpatient for two months ## **MACA.No.1941 OF 2011 3** and 15 days. The appellant spent a considerable amount of money for her treatment. The appellant was working as a teacher. The offending vehicle belonged to the 2[nd] respondent. Hence, the respondents 1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the appellant which she quantified at Rs.8 lakh. 3. The 1[st] respondent did not contest the proceedings and was set at ex parte. 4. The 2[nd] respondent filed a written statement denying allegations of negligence on the part of the 1[st] respondent, but contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car. The amount claimed under various heads was excessive and exorbitant. Hence, the claim petition be dismissed. 5. The claim petition was consolidated and jointly tried along with OP(MV) Nos.1861/06, 1669/04 and 1536/2005. The petitioners in the above claim petitions marked Exts.A1 to A33 in evidence. The 2[nd] respondent ## **MACA.No.1941 OF 2011 4** did not adduce any evidence. 6. The Tribunal, after analyising the pleadings and materials on record, by its common award dated 27.12.2010 allowed the claim petition in part by awarding the appellant an amount of Rs.3,77,122/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and costs of Rs.3750/- . 7. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the petitioner is in appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent/Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. 9. The question that emerges for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation is awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just. 10. A constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay**_ **MACA.No.1941 OF 2011 5** _**Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680)**_ , has held that Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, deals with the concept of 'just compensation' and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standards. The conception of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability. 11. The respondents do not dispute the fact that the accident was caused due to the negligence on the part of the 1[st] respondent. The Police after investigation had chargesheeted the 1[st] respondent for negligence. Undisputedly, the 1[st] respondent was the driver of the 2[nd] respondent. Therefore, the liability of the 2[nd] respondent stands established and is conclusive. 12. The appellant had claimed that she was a teacher by profession and drawing a salary of Rs.4,900/per month. The Tribunal fixed the notional income of the appellant at Rs.4,000/- per month. ## **MACA.No.1941 OF 2011 6** ## **Notional Income** 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., (2011 (13) SCC 236)** and in_ _**Syed Sadiq and Others vs.Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2014 (2) SCC**_ _**735)**_ has categorically declared the notional income of a Coolie Worker in the year 2004 at Rs.4,500/- and that of a Vegetable Vendor in the year 2006 at Rs.6.500/-. 14. Following the parameters laid down in the aforecited decisions and taking into consideration the fact that the accident occurred on 14.12.2003, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant's notional income can be safely be fixed at Rs.4,500/-, i.e after deducting the tax liability of the appellant. Hence, I refix the notional income of the appellant at Rs.4,500/- per month. ## **Loss of earnings** 15. In view of re-fixation of the notional income of ## **MACA.No.1941 OF 2011 7** the appellant at Rs.4,500/- and taking note of the fact that she was incapacitated for 4 months, I fix her loss of earnings @ Rs.18,000/- instead of Rs.14,261/- fixed by the Tribunal. ## **Compensation for pain and sufferings** 16. It is substantiated by the wound certificate and discharge summary issued by the Medical Trust Hospital that the appellant had suffered a fracture on her right shoulder, a fracture over scalp, head injury and a fracture on her skull. Taking note of the aforesaid injuries, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant is entitled for compensation under the head pain and sufferings @ Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.30,000/fixed by the Tribunal, that is an escalation by a further amount of Rs.20,000/-. ## **Compensation for permanent disability** 17. It is proved that the appellant has a permanent disability of 10%. In view of the re-fixation of the **MACA.No.1941 OF 2011 8** notional income and that the appellant has a permanent disability of 10%, and the relevant multiplier being 13, I hold that the appellant is entitled for compensation for loss due to disability at Rs.87,500/- instead of Rs.62,400/- fixed by the Tribunal. ## **Other heads of claim** : 18. With respect to the other heads of claim namely; treatment expenses, bystander expenses, damages to clothing, transportation charges, extra nourishment and compensation for disfiguration, I find that the Tribunal had awarded reasonable and just compensation. 19. On an over all re-appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record, I am of the firm opinion that the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below for easy reference. **MACA.No.1941 OF 2011 9** |Head of claim|Amount Awarded by the Tribunal (in Rs.)|Amounts modified and recalculated by this Court| |---|---|---| |||| |Loss of earnings|14,261/-|18,000/-| |Treatment expenses|12,37,461/-|2,37,461/-| |Bystander expenses|23,500/-|3,500/-| |Damages to clothing|2300/-|300/-| |Expenses for Treatment|112,100/-|12,100/-| |Bystander Expenses|1400/|400/| |Transportation expenses|22,200/-|2,200/-| |Compensation for pain and sufferings|30,000/-|50,000/-| |Compensation for permanent disability|62,400/-|87,750/-| |Compensation for disfiguration|25,000/-|25,000/-| |Compensation for extra nourishment|2,000/-|2,000/-| |Total|3,77,122/-|4,01,211/-| ## **MACA.No.1941 OF 2011 10** In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.24,089/- with interest at the rate of Rs.7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs. The 2nd respondent shall deposit the additional compensation awarded in this appeal before the Tribunal with interest and proportionate costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The Tribunal shall disburse the additional compensation to the appellant/petitioner in accordance with law. Sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** pm