High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-03-22Appeal allowed in part.

Dakshayani v. Nisamusheen V.P., Mohammed and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.2108 OF 2018(A)

Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S.Dias
Judgment Date: 2021-03-22
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed in part. Notional income is fixed at Rs. 9,500 per month based on cited precedents. Loss of earnings is recalculated to Rs. 47,500 and disability to Rs. 23,940, with other heads left intact. The total achievable compensation becomes Rs. 2,59,407. The Appellant is entitled to an additional Rs. 38,040, with 9% interest per annum from the petition date to realization, plus proportionate costs. The 3rd respondent shall deposit the enhanced amount before the Tribunal within two months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment, and the Tribunal shall disburse it accordingly in accordance with law.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Dakshayani

Respondents

Nisamusheen V.P.
Mohammed
United India Insurance Company Limited

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. K. Vidyasagar

Counsels for Respondents

• K. Sherin Mohan
• Aginov Mathappan

Case Synopsis & Summary

Dakshayani, a 63-year-old claimant, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for injuries sustained when a goods auto-rickshaw hit her while she walked along Kalikav-Wandoor public road on 20 May 2014. The Additional MACT, Manjeri, awarded Rs. 2,21,367 with 9% interest and costs, despite both the 1st and 2nd respondents being ex parte. The Insurance Company, though admitting the vehicle was insured, contended the compensation claimed was excessive. The appellant claimed she was a coolie earning Rs. 12,000 per month, but the tribunal fixed the notional income at Rs. 5,000 per month. She challenged the quantum on appeal, seeking higher compensation in light of Supreme Court authorities. The High Court relied on Ramachanrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager to revise the notional income to Rs. 9,500 per month, and re-calculated heads of loss, including loss of earnings (Rs. 47,500) and disability (Rs. 23,940), while keeping other heads largely intact. The court concluded that the appellant was entitled to enhanced compensation, resulting in a total of Rs. 2,59,407, with an additional Rs. 38,040 on appeal. The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months, and the Tribunal to disburse accordingly. The appeal was allowed in part."

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income principle for MACT compensation (coolie workers; vegetable vendors) as refined by Supreme Court precedents (Ramachanrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd; Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager)
Court approval of raising notional income on appraisal of evidence to ensure fair compensation under MACT standards

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends she was a coolie by occupation with a monthly income of Rs.12,000, and that the Tribunal erred in fixing a notional income of Rs.5,000 per month. Relying on the Supreme Court decisions in Ramachanrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, she argues for a higher notional income and corresponding enhancement of compensation, especially under the heads of loss of earnings and disability, supported by hospitalisation and disability evidence. The aim is to align compensation with established benchmarks to ensure just and adequate relief for a laborer.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer contends the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant; it affirms vehicle coverage but opposes the enhanced amounts and maintains the Tribunal’s assessment as reasonable. The ex parte respondents did not contest the petition. The insurer also emphasizes the need to adhere to statutory heads and properly calculate damages, urging restraint in increasing notional income beyond judicially sanctioned values.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachanrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance	[(2011) 13 SCC 236]	Positive	Cited to justify notional income fixation for a coolie worker and support enhancement in the notional income figure.
Syed Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd	[(2014) 2 SCC 735]	Positive	Cited for benchmarks on notional income for laborers/vegetable vendors; used to validate higher notional income per month.

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 Dakshayani v. Nisamusheen V.P., Mohammed and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**MACA.No.2108 OF 2018** **1** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1943** **MACA.No.2108 OF 2018(A)** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 96/2015 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL- III, MANJERI** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **DAKSHAYANI AGED 63 YEARS W/O.RAJAN, VELLILA HOUSE,AMARAMBALAM, KARA POST,NILAMBUR TALUK, WANDOOR AMSOM,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679 339.** **BY ADV. SHRI.K.VIDYASAGAR** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 NISAMUSHEEN V.P. AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.HAMZA, VATTAPARAMBAN HOUSE,MANHAPETTY, KOORIPOYIL, KOORAD POST,NILAMBUR TALUK, KOORAD AMSOM,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 339.** **2 MOHAMMED AGED 37 YEARS,VATTAPARAMBAN HOUSE, KOORAD POST,KALIKAVU, NILAMBUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 525.** **3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AM BUILDING, HOSPITAL ROAD, CHETTIYANGADI - 676 329.** **R3 BY ADV. K.SHERIN MOHAN R3 BY ADV. AGINOV MATHAPPAN** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-03-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.No.2108 OF 2018** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** **Dated this the 22nd day of March 2021** The appellant was the petitioner in O.P. (MV) No.96/2015 on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manjeri The respondents in the appeal were the respondents in the claim petition. 2. The appellant had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the accident that took place on 20.5.2014. It was her case that, while she was walking along the way side of the Kalikav - Wandoor Pubic Road, a Goods Autorickshaw bearing Reg. No.KL10/AL- 1309 (offending vehicle) driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the appellant. She sustained serious injuries. The offending vehicle was owned by the 2[nd] respondent and insured with the 3[rd] respondent. She was a coolie **MACA.No.2108 OF 2018** **3** worker and earning a monthly income of Rs.12,000/-. The respondents 1 to 3 were jointly and severally liable to pay her compensation, which she quantified at Rs.4,00,000/- 3. The respondents 1 and 2 did not contest the proceedings and were set ex parte. 4. The 3[rd] respondent – Insurance Company – filed a written statement, inter alia, admitting that the offending vehicle was insured with it. However, it was contended that the compensation claimed in the claim petition was excessive and exorbitant. 5. The petitioner marked Exts.A1 to A7 in evidence. Ext.C1 Report of the Medical Board was marked as a Court Exhibit. 6. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned award allowed the claim petition in part, by directing the 3[rd] respondent to pay the appellant an amount of Rs.2,21,367/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per **MACA.No.2108 OF 2018** **4** annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. 7. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is in appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent. 9. Although the appellant had claimed that she was a coolie worker and earning a monthly income of Rs.12,000/-, The Tribunal fixed the notinal income of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Ramachanrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance** [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and in **Syed Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd** [(2014) 2 SCC 735] has fixed the notional income of a coolie worker at Rs.4,500/- per month in the year, 2004 and that of a vegetable **MACA.No.2108 OF 2018** **5** vendor at the rate of Rs.6,500/- per month in the year 2008. 11. Following by the parameters laid down in the afore-cited precedents, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant's notional income can safely be fixed at Rs.9,500/- per month. 12. Exts.A4(a) to A4(c) discharge summary shows that the petitioner was hospitalised for a period of 23 days . Ext.C1 medical report shows that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability assessed at 2%. 13. In view of the re-fixation of the notional income of the petitioner, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation under the head 'loss of earnings' which has to be re-fixed at 47,500/- instead of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Similarly, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the head 'loss due to disability' at Rs.23,940/- instead of Rs.8400/- awarded by the **MACA.No.2108 OF 2018** **6** Tribunal. 14. With respect to the other heads of compensation, namely, Transport to hospital, Damage to clothing, Extra nourishment, Medical expenses and Pain and suffering, I find that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable and just compensation. 15. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, materials on record and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited decisions, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as modified and re-calculated above, and given in the table below for easy reference. **MACA.No.2108 OF 2018** **7** |SI. No|Head of claim|Amount awarded by the Tribunal (in rupees)|Amounts modified and recalculate d by this Court| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earning|25,000|47,500| |2|Transport to hospital|2,500|2,500| |3|Extra nourishment|1,500|1,500| |4|Damage to clothing and articles|1,000|1,000| |5|Others (Medical Bills & Bystander's expenses)|1,47,967|1,47,967| |6|Compensation for pain and suffering|25,000|25,000| |7|Compensation for the continuing or permanent disability|8,400|23,940| |8|Compensation for loss of earning power and loss of amenities|10,000|10,000| |9.|Total|2,21,367|2,59,407| In the result, the appeal is allowed, in part, by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.38,040/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. The 3[rd] respondent shall deposit the additional compensation awarded in this appeal before the Tribunal with interest and proportionate costs, within **MACA.No.2108 OF 2018** **8** a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The Tribunal shall disburse the additional compensation to the appellant, in accordance with law. ## ma/23.3.2020 **Sd/-C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** /True copy/