High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-07-29Appeal allowed to the extent stated; enhanced c...

Deepak Kumar Das v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 1407 OF 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman
Judgment Date: 2022-07-29
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed to the said extent. The 2nd respondent shall deposit the enhanced amount of Rs. 14,40,215 with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition (03.12.2013) till realization with proportionate costs, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed to the extent stated; enhanced compensation and deposit directions issued.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Deepak Kumar Das

Respondents

National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• L. Ram Mohan
• M. Aubrey Abraham Isaac

Counsels for Respondents

• George Cherian (Sr.)
• Sm. K. S. Santhi

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, hearing MACA No. 1407 of 2016 arising from an MACT award in O.P.(MV) No. 888/2013 at Muvattupuzha. On 18.09.2012, the petitioner was a passenger in an autorickshaw when a car collided with the autorickshaw, causing serious injuries. The Tribunal held the first respondent driver negligent and awarded Rs. 13,18,663 as total compensation with 9% interest and costs, distributed across heads such as loss of earnings, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, medical treatment, bystander expenses, extra nourishment, transportation, and permanent disability. The petitioner contends that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal (Rs. 5,000 per month) is too low and relies on Ramachandrappa to fix Rs. 8,500 per month, recalculating loss of earnings to Rs. 1,27,500 for 15 months. Based on an 85% disability and a multiplier of 18, with future prospects at 40% for a self-employed person, the award would yield Rs. 21,84,840 for disability, with enhanced amounts for other heads (pain, amenities, nourishment, etc.), totaling an enhanced sum of Rs. 14,40,215. The High Court allows the appeal to the said extent, directing payment of Rs. 14,40,215 with 9% interest from 03.12.2013 till realization and costs, to be deposited within two months.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income doctrine for MACT calculations as per Ramachandrappa
Future prospects for disability compensation (self-employed) following the Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar dictum
Multiplier principle in computing compensation for permanent disability
Guidelines for assessing compensation via notional income and future prospects as per Ramachandrappa and Pappu Deo Yadav

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in fixing the notional income at Rs. 5,000 per month and not applying the Ramachandrappa guideline of Rs. 8,500 per month, which would yield a higher loss of earnings (Rs. 1,27,500 for 15 months). He submits that, given the age of the injured (22) and 85% disability, future prospects must be considered (40% of income for self-employed), resulting in a higher disability compensation. He also argues for enhanced amounts under heads such as pain and suffering, loss of amenities, nourishment, and other heads, to reflect the injury severity and period of treatment, culminating in a total enhanced compensation of Rs. 14,40,215.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the accident was caused by the negligence of the autorickshaw driver and that the insured status is admitted; they maintain the Tribunal’s award as just and contend the claimed amounts are excessive. They rely on liability principles and dispute the proposed recalculations, arguing against inflating compensation and asserting the maintenance of appropriate heads and amounts per evidence and policy terms.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	2011 (13) SCC 236; AIR 2011 SC 2951	Positive	Cited as the controlling authority for fixing notional income in MACT disputes; the Court adopts the Ramachandrappa guideline, increasing notional income to Rs. 8,500 per month.
Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar and Others	AIR 2020 SC 442	Positive	Cited for determining future prospects in disability compensation; the Court applies the 85% disability and 40% future prospects for self-employed, aiding computation.

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 Deepak Kumar Das v. National 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.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN FRIDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1944** **MACA NO. 1407 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 15.10.2015 IN O.P.(MV)NO. 888/2013 OF THE** **MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL MUVATTUPUZHA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **DEEPAK KUMAR DAS, AGED 24 YEARS S/O.BISOWNATH DASHANSPAT P.O. AND VILLAGE, BHADRAK DISTRICT, ORISSA,PIN -756 131.** **BY ADVS. SRI.L.RAM MOHAN SRI.M.AUBREY ABRAHAM ISAAC** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:** **NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD DIVISION NO.10, FLAT 101-106, N1 BMC HOUSE, CONNAUGHT PLACE,NEW DELHI-110 001, PRESENT ADDRESS:NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1ST FLOOR AJAI VIHAR, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY MANAGER.** **BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) SMT.K.S.SANTHI** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD** **ON 29.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA NO. 1407 OF 2016 ..2..** ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.888/2013 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha. The parties are referred to as per their status in the claim petition. 2. According to the petitioner, on 18.09.2012, while he was travelling as a passenger in an autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KL-17/J 4787, a car bearing Registration No.KL-38/A 1800, driven by the 1[st] respondent rashly and negligently, hit against the autorickshaw and the petitioner sustained serious injuries. The 1[st] respondent is the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle and the 2[nd] respondent is its insurer. The petitioner was treated as inpatient for 41 days. He claimed an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- as compensation under various heads for the injuries **MACA NO. 1407 OF 2016 ..3..** sustained in the accident. 3. The 1[st] respondent filed a written statement stating that the accident happened due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the autorickshaw and that the vehicle was validly insured with the 2[nd] respondent and also stated that the amounts claimed under various heads are excessive. 4. The 2[nd] respondent/insurance company filed a written statement contending that the accident happened due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the autorickshaw. Though the insurance policy was admitted, the insurer denied the age, occupation and monthly income of the petitioner. It was also contended that the amounts claimed as compensation under various heads are excessive. 5. The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the negligence of the 1[st] respondent/driver of the **MACA NO. 1407 OF 2016 ..4..** offending vehicle and awarded an amount of Rs.13,18,663/- as total compensation with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate costs. The split up of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is given below: ||Head|Amount claimed|Amount awarded| |---|---|---|---| |1.|Loss of earnings|1,50,000|60,000| |2.|Pain and suferings|2,00,000|80,000| |3.|Loss of amenites|1,50,000|70,000| |4.|Medical treatment charges|2,60,000|2,20,338| |5.|Bystander expenses||8,200| |6.|Extra nourishment charges|25,000|5,125| |7.|Transportation charges|10,000|8,000| |8.|Compensation for permanent disability|8,00,000|8,67,000| ||Total||13,18,663/-| **MACA NO. 1407 OF 2016 ..5..** 6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred this appeal. 7. According to the petitioner, he was a fitter and was earning a monthly income of Rs.10,000/- at the time of the accident. Since no evidence was adduced by the petitioner to prove his income, the Tribunal fixed the notional income as Rs.5,000/-. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**v**_ **. Ramachandrappa Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited** [2011 (13) SCC 236 : AIR 2011 SC 2951], has taken the notional income of a manual labourer in the year 2004 as Rs.4,500/-. Going by the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in **Ramachandrappa** (supra), the notional income of the petitioner at the time of the accident can be taken as Rs.8,500/- per month. Accordingly, I re-fix the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.8,500/-. **MACA NO. 1407 OF 2016 ..6..** 8. In the claim petition, the petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs.1,50,000 under the head loss of earnings for 15 months. Since I have fixed the notional income of the petitioner as Rs.8,500/- per month and taking into account the nature of injuries, the compensation under the above head is recalculated as Rs.1,27,500/- (Rs.8,500x15). The petitioner has already been awarded Rs.60,000/- under the said head. Therefore, he is entitled for an enhanced amount of **Rs.67,500/-** (Rs.1.27,500-60,000). 9. The petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- towards compensation for permanent disability. The petitioner was aged 22 years at the time of the accident and therefore, the multiplier to be taken is '18'. Since in Ext.C1, the disability of the petitioner has been certified as 85%, going by the dictum laid down in **Pappu Deo Yadav** v. **Naresh Kumar and Others** **MACA NO. 1407 OF 2016 ..7..** [AIR 2020 SCC 442], he is entitled for future prospects. The petitioner, being a self employed person, is entitled to 40% of the income towards future prospects. Accordingly, the monthly income of the petitioner, for the purpose of computation of compensation for permanent disability is taken as Rs.11,900/- (8,500+3,400) and the petitioner is therefore, entitled for an amount of Rs.21,84,840 (11,900x12x18x85/100) under the said head. Since the petitioner has already been awarded an amount of Rs.8,67,000/- as compensation under the above head, he is granted an enhanced amount of **Rs.13,17,840/-** (21,84,840-8,67,000). 10. Towards pain and sufferings, the petitioner has been awarded an amount of Rs.80,000/-. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained, I re-fix the compensation as Rs.1,00,000/- and the petitioner is entitled for an enhanced amount of **Rs.20,000/-** **MACA NO. 1407 OF 2016 ..8..** ## (1,00,000-80,000) under the said head. 11. Under the head loss of amenities, the petitioner was awarded Rs.70,000/-. Taking note of the disability certified in Ext.C1, I re-fix the compensation as Rs.1,00,000/- and the petitioner is entitled for an enhanced amount of **Rs.30,000/-** (1,00,000-70,000) under the said head. 12. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.5,125/- towards compensation for extra nourishment. Taking note of the injuries sustained and the period of treatment, I re-fix the compensation under the above head as Rs.10,000/- and accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for an enhanced amount of **Rs.4,875/-** (10,0005,125). 13. I find that the compensation awarded under other heads is just and reasonable. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for an enhanced **MACA NO. 1407 OF 2016 ..9..** compensation of **Rs.14,40,215/-** (67,500 + 13,17,840 + 20,000 + 30,000 + 4,875). The 2[nd] respondent shall deposit the said amount with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition (03.12.2013) till realisation with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appeal is allowed to the said extent. **Sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** SB/30/07/2022