High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-07-08The appeal is allowed, in part.

K.N.Narayanan @ Kuttappayi v. Babu @ Sreenivasan, Saravamangalam and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (MACA No. 1853 of 2009)

Case / Petition Number:MACA No. 1853 of 2009

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2021-07-08
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed in part: the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 37,680 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing till deposit, after excluding 653 days of delay; the third respondent (insurer) shall deposit the enhanced amount with costs within two months from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, and the Tribunal shall disburse the amounts in accordance with law.
Final Disposition: The appeal is allowed, in part.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.N. Narayanan @ Kuttappayi

Respondents

Babu @ Sreenivasan
Saravamangalam
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• N. J. Antony (Advocate)

Counsels for Respondents

• Celine Joseph (Advocate)
• M. Jacob Murickan (Advocate)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal arising from OPMV 155/2001 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, Wayanad. The appellant, K.N. Narayanan alias Kuttappayi, injured in a tractor accident on 29 January 2001, challenged the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 16,066 payable to him for the injuries sustained as a head-load worker. The tractor, owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent, was involved in an accident caused by the first respondent’s negligence. The Tribunal held the claim in part and fixed a notional income of Rs. 2,100 per month and a disability of 3%, after considering Exts. A1–A6, with proportionate costs payable by the insurer. On appeal, the High Court re-evaluated several heads: applying the Ramachandrappa framework, it fixed the notional income at Rs. 3,000 per month; confirmed 3% disability but observed the injury caused a three-month indisposition; it recalculated losses: loss of earnings to Rs. 9,000, by-stander expenses to Rs. 1,200, and added Rs. 5,000 for loss of amenities and Rs. 10,000 for pain and suffering. The court held the appellant entitled to an enhanced total of Rs. 37,680 and awarded interest at 6% p.a. from filing till deposit, excluding 653 days of delay, with proportionate costs. 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

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 168

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Just compensation under MV Act (Section 168) must be fair, reasonable and equitable.
Notional income analysis guided by Ramachandrappa (2011) and the ‘just compensation’ doctrine articulated in Pranay Sethi.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal’s quantum is inadequate and does not reflect the true financial and non-pecuniary losses. Relying on Ramachandrappa (2011), he submits the notional income for a head-load worker in 2001 should be higher than Rs. 2,100 per month and that the accident caused a longer incapacity than the six weeks treated by the tribunal, amounting to about three months of indisposition. Ext. A5 indicates 5% permanent disability, yet the Tribunal treated it at 3% without consulting the issuing doctor, and the appellant seeks higher compensation across heads—loss of earnings, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and by-stander expenses—in the spirit of Pranay Sethi’s fairness standard. Interest at 6% is urged with deposit before the Tribunal, and the enhanced amount to be deposited within two months.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the Tribunal’s award was in line with the evidence and legal standards. The notional income of Rs. 2,100 per month was properly determined, and 3% disability was reasonable on the record. They contend that the by-stander expenses and other heads were within permissible limits, and that the insurer’s liability remains restricted to the policy. They urge upholding the Tribunal’s award or restricting any enhancement to align with the evidence and MV Act guidelines, noting that the 6% interest rate and time-frame for deposit are appropriate.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	[(2017) 16 SCC 680]	Positive	Cited to articulate the standard and framework of ‘just compensation’ under MV Act, emphasizing fairness, reasonableness and equitability.
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	[(2011) 13 SCC 236]	Positive	Cited for notional income fixation for a low-income worker; used to justify Rs. 3,000 per month as notional income in 2001.

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 K.N.Narayanan @ Kuttappayi v. Babu @ Sreenivasan, Saravamangalam and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (MACA No. 1853 of 2009) 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 8[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1943** **MACA NO. 1853 OF 2009** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 155/2001 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KALPETTA, WAYANAD APPELLANT/S:** **K.N.NARAYANAN @ KUTTAPPAYI AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN,, KANNENKERIYIL HOUSE, ARINJARAMALA P.O., MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV SRI.N.J.ANTONY** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 BABU @ SREENIVASAN AGE NOT KNOWN S/O.THRIPTHI GOWDER, SANTHINILAYAM,, ERANELLOOR, PANAMARAM POST, MANANTHAVADY TALUK,, WAYANAD DISTRICT., (DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR NO.KLW 2369.DL.NO. NOT KNOWN). 2 SARAVAMANGALAM, AGE NOT KNWON W/O.BABU @ SREENIVASAN, SANTHINILAYAM,, ERANELLOR, PANAMARAM POST, MANANTHAVAY TALUK,, WAYANAD DIST., (OWNER OF THE TRACTOR NO.KLW 2369).** - **3 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. KALPETTA. (POLICY NO.NOT KNOWN.)** **BY ADVS. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA NO. 1853 OF 2009** **2** ## **C. S. DIAS, J.** **----------------------------------------M.A.C.A.No.1853 of 2009** **------------------------------------** Dated this the 8[th] day of July, 2021 ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant was the petitioner in OP (MV) No.155 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, Wayanad. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents in the claim petition. 2. The concise case in the claim petition, relevant for the determination of the appeal is: on 29.01.2001, while the appellant was travelling in a tractor bearing registration No. KL W/ 2369 from Eachome to Panamaram, the driver of the tractor – the first respondent lost control over the tractor and the appellant was thrown on the road. The appellant sustained injuries and was treated at the Leo Hospital, Kalpetta **MACA NO. 1853 OF 2009** **3** from 30.01.2001 to 05.02.2001, i.e., for a period of six days. The accident occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the first respondent. The tractor was owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent. The appellant was a head load worker by profession and earning monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. The appellant claimed a total amount of Rs.1,75,000/- as compensation from the respondents. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 did not contest the proceedings and were set ex-parte. 4. The third respondent filed a written statement admitting that the tractor had a valid insurance policy. Nevertheless, the third respondent denied the age and occupation of the appellant and contended that the compensation claimed under the different heads were excessive. **MACA NO. 1853 OF 2009** **4** 5. The appellant examined himself as PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A6 in evidence. 6. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned award allowed the claim petition, in part, by permitting the appellant to realise an amount of Rs. 16,066/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation along with proportionate costs from the third respondent. 7. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner is in appeal. 8. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent/Insurance Company. 9. The sole question that arises for consideration in the appeal is whether the quantum of compensation **MACA NO. 1853 OF 2009** **5** 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 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 nonviolation of the principle of equitability. 11. Ext.A1 FIR, Ext.A2 schene mahazar and Ext.A6 AMVI report substantiates the fact that the accident occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the first respondent. Admittedly, the second respondent was the owner of the tractor and the third respondent was **MACA NO. 1853 OF 2009** **6** the insurer. Therefore, it is the third respondent who is liable to indemnify the second respondent his liability caused on account of the accident. ## **Notional Income** 12. The appellant had claimed that he was a head load worker and earning a monthly income of Rs.5,000/- . However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at Rs.2,100/-. 13. In **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited** [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed the notional income of a Coolie worker in the year 2004, at Rs.4,500/- per month. 14. Following the parameters in the above decision and considering the fact that the appellant was a head load worker and the accident occurred in the year 2001, **MACA NO. 1853 OF 2009** **7** I am of the opinion that the appellant's notional income can safely be fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month. ## **Disability** 15. Although the appellant had produced Ext.A5 disability certificate, wherein it is certified that the appellant has a permanent disability of 5%, the Tribunal for the reason that the appellant had not examined the doctor who issued Ext.A5, after seeing the appellant who was examined as PW1, fixed his permanent disability at 3%. I do not find any error in the course adopted by the Tribunal. Therefore, I confirm the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the percentage of disability of the appellant at 3%. ## **Loss of earnings** 16. As per Ext.A5, it is seen that the appellant was advised complete bed rest for a period of six weeks. In **MACA NO. 1853 OF 2009** **8** the said circumstances, particularly taking note of the fact that the appellant had sustained a fracture and was advised bed rest, I hold that the appellant was indisposed for three months. In view of the re-fixation of the notional income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- and the period of indisposition as three months, I hold that the appellant is entitled for 'loss of earnings' at Rs.9,000/- instead of Rs.1,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. ## **Loss due to disability** 17. In view of the re-fixation of the notional income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/-, the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation for loss due to disability at Rs.11,880/- (Rs.3,000 x 11 x 12x 3/100) i.e., an enhancement of Rs.3,564/-. ## **- By stander Expenses** 18. It is on record that the appellant had undergone **MACA NO. 1853 OF 2009** **9** in-patient treatment for a period of six days. The Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.200/- towards bystander expenses, which according to me is on the lower side. Hence, I re-fix the by-stander expenses at Rs.250/per day for six days, i.e., Rs.1,200/- , an enhancement of Rs.1,000/-. ## **Pain and sufferings** 19. The appellant had claimed an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for pain and sufferings. The Tribunal only awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/-. Taking note of the injuries sustained by the appellant, particularly a fracture on his right ankle that he was advised complete bed rest for a period of six weeks and was indisposed for a period of three months, I am of the firm opinion that the appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head 'pain and **MACA NO. 1853 OF 2009** **10** sufferings'. ## **Loss of amenities** 20. The appellant had claimed an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation under the afore-said head. However, the Tribunal did not award any amount towards 'loss of amenities'. Taking note of the injuries sustained by the appellant and that he has suffered 3% permanent disability, I hold that the appellant is entitled for compensation under the head 'loss of amenities' at Rs.5,000/-. 21. With respect to the other heads of compensation, I find that the Tribunal had awarded reasonable and just compensation. 22. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, materials on record and the law referred in the aforecited decision, I am of the definite opinion that the **MACA NO. 1853 OF 2009** **11** appellant/petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below for easy reference. |Sl. No|Heads of claim|Amount awarded by the Tribunal (in rupees)|Amounts modified and recalculated by this Court| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earnings|1,000/-|9,000/-| |2|Transport|500/-|500/-| |3|Expenses for extra nourishment|300/-|300/-| |4|Damage to clothing|250/-|250/-| |5|Medical expenses|500/-|500/-| |6|Compensation for pain and sufferings|5,000/-|10,000/-| **MACA NO. 1853 OF 2009** **12** |7|By-standers expenses|200/-|250/-| |---|---|---|---| |8|Compensation for loss of amenities|Nil|5,000/-| |9|Loss due to disability|8,316/-|11,880/-| ||Total|16,066/-|37,680/-| In the result, the appeal is allowed, in part, by enhancing the compensation by a further of amount of Rs.21,614/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand Six Hundred and Fourteen Only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, after deducting the period of 653 days, i.e, the period of delay in preferring the appeal and as ordered by this Court on 30.03.2021 C.M.Appl.No.2125 of 2009, and proportionate costs. The third respondent shall **MACA NO. 1853 OF 2009** **13** deposit the enhanced compensation with interest and proportionate costs before the Tribunal, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The Tribunal shall disburse the compensation amount to the appellant, in accordance with law. **SD/C.S.DIAS JUDGE** RK