High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2025-02-13Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation a...

Indira v. Chandrasekharan V. and The New India Assurance Company Limited

Case / Petition Number:MACA No. 1162 of 2014

Neutral Citation:2025:KER:20240

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. Pratheep Kumar
Judgment Date: 2025-02-13
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed in part; enhanced total compensation Rs. 9,48,311 with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation, and costs; insurer to deposit within two months; Tribunal to disburse the enhanced amount upon deposit.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation awarded; insurer directed to deposit the amount with interest and costs within two months; Tribunal to disburse after deposit.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Indira

Respondents

Chandrasekharan V.
The New India Assurance Company Limited

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. V.S.Chandrasekharan
• Smt. Lekshmi Swaminathan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. P. Jacob Mathew (SC)
• Sri. Mathews Jacob Sr.

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Indira, is the appellant in MACA No. 1162 of 2014 arising from an award in O.P.(M.V.) No.84 of 2011 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for injuries sustained on 17 December 2009 when she was a pillion rider on a scooter driven by the 1st respondent. The Tribunal found negligence on the driver and awarded a total compensation of Rs 5,51,871 against the insurer, with the insurer directed to pay. The appellant contends that the quantum of compensation is not just and reasonable and that the Tribunal erred in the assessment of the notional income and other heads of damages. The key legal arguments hinge on notional income and the correct application of Supreme Court precedents. The appellant argues, relying on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236, that the notional income in 2009 should be Rs 7,000 per month for a coolie; she also seeks enhancement of compensation heads such as loss of earning (to reflect higher notional income), future prospects (10%), disability (45%), pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and extra nourishment, guided by Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma. The Respondents contend the Tribunal’s assessment was reasonable and oppose higher figures. The High Court, after examining the evidence (Exts. A1–A11, C1) and applying the cited precedents, re-calculates the figures, resulting in a total enhanced compensation of Rs 9,48,311. The appeal is allowed in part, with the insurer directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest and costs within two months, and the Tribunal to disburse after deposit.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income/test for coolies (Ramachandrappa)
Future prospects/addition under Pranay Sethi
Multiplier principle and calculation under Sarla Verma

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in fixing the petitioner's notional income at Rs. 3,000 per month for 2009 and failed to follow Ramachandrappa (2011) to fix Rs. 7,000 as notional income for a coolie in that year. They urge recalculation of compensation heads (loss of earning, disability, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, and extra nourishment) using Rs. 7,000 as notional income, 10% future prospects for a 50-year-old injured claimants, and the appropriate multiplier per Sarla Verma, resulting in higher overall compensation. They rely on Pranay Sethi for future prospects and on Ramachandrappa for income benchmarks.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the Tribunal's quantum was just and reasonable; the notional income hewed to the evidence and policy, arguing that there is no need to override Tribunal findings. They maintain that the existing heads of damages were rightly assessed and that substantial enhancement is unwarranted beyond reasonable bounds. They emphasize adherence to established precedents but contend the Tribunal’s discretion in compensation needs respect for the facts and evidence adduced.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.	2011 (13) SCC 236	Positive	Used to fix notional income for a coolie in 2009 (notional income uplift to Rs. 7,000) as relied upon by the appellant.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	2017 (16) SCC 680	Positive	Cited for the principle of adding future prospects (10%) to the income in appropriate cases.
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	2009 (6) SCC 121	Positive	Cited for the multiplier applicable in calculating total 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 Indira v. Chandrasekharan V. and The New India Assurance Company Limited and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

_**MACA. No.1162/2014**_ _**1**_ **2025:KER:20240** **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 24TH MAGHA, 1946** **MACA NO. 1162 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 25.04.2013 IN OPMV NO.84 OF 2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOZHIKODE** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER** **INDIRA AGED 53 YEARS, W/O UNNEERIKUTTY, RESIDING AT MUTHASSANKANDIYIL HOUSE, PO. PAYIMBRA, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE.** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS** - **1 CHANDRASEKHARAN V., AGED 73 YEARS, S/O SANKARAN, RESIDING AT 31/1237, SMITHA NIVAS, PO, KARUVISSERY, KOZHIKODE-673 001.** - **2 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFIFCE, SILVER PLAZA BUILDING, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 008.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW- SC SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY** **HEARD ON 13.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** _**MACA. No.1162/2014**_ _**2**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:20240** ## J U D G M E N T Dated this the 13[th] day of February, 2025 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.84 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode is the appellant herein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal). 2. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 17.12.2009. According to the petitioner, on 17.12.2009 at about 9 a.m., while she was riding pillion on a scooter ridden by the 1[st] respondent, the 1[st] respondent twisted the scooter carelessly and as a result of which she fell down and she sustained serious injuries. 3. The 1[st] respondent is the owner cum rider, and the 2[nd] respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1[st] _**MACA. No.1162/2014**_ _**3**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:20240** respondent. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.7,27,000/-. 4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. 5. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A11 and C1. 6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,51,871/- and directed the insurer to pay the same. 7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this appeal. 8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following: _Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by_ _the Tribunal is just and reasonable?_ 9. Heard Sri. V.S Chandrasekharan, the learned Counsel appearing _**MACA. No.1162/2014**_ _**4**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:20240** for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri. P. Jacob Mathew, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2[nd] respondent. 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the petitioner was working as Tailor, earning Rs. 6,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed her monthly income at Rs.3,000/-. 11. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in _**Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.**_ [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2009 will come to Rs.7,000/-. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.7000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. Since the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2009 will come to Rs.7000/-, in order to award just and reasonable compensation, in the light of a dictum laid down in the _**MACA. No.1162/2014**_ _**5**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:20240** decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Ramachandrappa (supra)** , the notional income of the petitioner is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.7000/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: _"fracture left side of temporo parital extradural hematoma, temporal contusion with subdural hematoma, fracture left zygomatic arch, 6 cm long scalp laceration at the parietal eminence, diffuse swelling persists."_ 13. Ext. C1 disability certificate shows that the petitioner suffered 45% permanent physical disability. It was issued by the medical board. The Tribunal, has accepted the permanent physical disability of the petitioner as such and hence, I do not find any grounds to disbelieve the same. Therefore, the permanent physical disability of the petitioner is accepted as 45%, as fixed by the Tribunal. 14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 50 years. Therefore, 10% of the monthly income is to be added towards future prospects, as held in the decision in **National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi** [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and the multiplier to be applied is _**MACA. No.1162/2014**_ _**6**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:20240** 13, as held in **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation** [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. In the above circumstances, the loss of disability will come to Rs.5,40,540/-. 15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.18,000/- being the income for 6 months @Rs.3000/-. Since the notional income of the petitioner is re-fixed at Rs. 7,000/-, towards loss of earning he is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 42,000/-(7000x6months). 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.15,000/- was awarded and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.2,500/- was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side. 17. The petitioner sustained very serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 52 days. Because of the injuries sustained, the percentage of disability suffered and the length of treatment undergone by the petitioner, I hold that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the heads ‘pain and sufferings’, 'loss of _**MACA. No.1162/2014**_ _**7**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:20240** amenities of life' and 'extra nourishment' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.50,000/-, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.5,000/respectively. 18. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 19. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.9,48,311/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: |**Sl.**<br>**No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount awarded by**<br>**Tribunal(in Rs.)**|**Amount Awarded in**<br>**Appeal(in Rs.)**| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earning|18,000/-|42,000/-(7000x6)| |2|Transportation|1,000/-|1,000/-| |3|Damage to Clothing|5,00/-|500/-| |4|Extra nourishment|2,500/-|5,000/-| |5|Bystander expenses|10,400/-|10,400/-| |6|Treatment expenses|2,68,871/-|2,68,871/-| |7|Pain and suffering|25,000/-|50,000/-| |8|Loss of disability|2,10,600/-|5,40,540/-| |9|Loss of amenities of life|15,000/-|30,000/-| ||**Total**|**5,51,871/-**|**9,48,311/-**| ||Enhanced Rs.3,96,440/-||| _**MACA. No.1162/2014**_ _**8**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:20240** 20. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No. 2 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.9,48,311/- (Rupees nine lakh forty eight thousand three hundred and eleven Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. 21. On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the petitioner, excluding court fee payable, if any, without delay, as per rules. Sd/- C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE sou.