High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-08-10The appeals are partly allowed. MACA 1322/2018 ...

M.A.C.A. Nos.2793 of 2015 & 1322 of 2018

Case / Petition Number:MACA No. 2793 of 2015; MACA No. 1322 of 2018

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Sathish Ninan
Judgment Date: 2022-08-10
Court Decision / Holding: The Court allows M.A.C.A. No.1322 of 2018: the claimant is entitled to a further amount of Rs 12,639, with interest at 9% from the date of petition till realization, excluding 302 days, with the enhanced award to be satisfied within one month from today. M.A.C.A. No.2793 of 2015 is allowed: the OP(MV) is remanded to the Tribunal solely to determine whether the second respondent had a valid driving license at the time of the accident and the consequential liability of the Insurance Company. Parties are to appear before the Tribunal on 01.09.2022; the claimant need not appear. Bench: Single Judge (Sathish Ninan, J.).
Final Disposition: The appeals are partly allowed. MACA 1322/2018 is allowed for enhanced compensation with Rs 12,639 additional amount and 9% interest; MACA 2793/2015 is allowed with remand to MACT to verify driving license and insurer liability; enhanced payment to be made within one month; appearances fixed for 01.09.2022.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

T.K. Kishore
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Respondents

LiJo M.J.
Joju S/o Antony
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri M. Mathews Jacob (Sr.)
• Sri P. Jacob Mathew
• Sri K.A. Sreejith

Counsels for Respondents

• A.R. Nimod
• Sri P. Jacob Mathew
• M.A. Augustine

Case Synopsis & Summary

These are consolidated Motor Accident Claims Appeals arising from an Award dated 30.01.2015 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, in OP(MV) 404/2005. The claimant-respondent in MACA 1322/2018 seeks enhancement of compensation; the appeal is supported by the reasoning that the Tribunal erred in fixing the notional monthly income of the injured farmer at Rs 3,500 in 2005. Relying on the Supreme Court authorities Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) AIR (SC) 2951 and Syed Sadiq v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014) (2) SCC 735, the Court holds that notional income should be Rs 5,000 per month, necessitating a re-calculation of heads of loss (earned earnings, disability, etc.) and resulting in a larger overall award (an additional Rs 12,639 with 9% interest from the petition date, excluding a 302-day delay). In MACA 2793/2015, the insurer challenges liability, contending issues including whether the rider possessed a valid driving license at the time of the accident. The Court, while condoning delay in filing, remands to the MACT to determine whether the second respondent had a valid license and the resulting liability. Overall, the Court allows both appeals to the extent described and directs payment and remand for license verification.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income principle (Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.)
Notional income notional income fixed at Rs. 5,000 per month (Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contend that the Tribunal erred in fixing the notional monthly income at Rs 3,500 in 2005, a figure unsupported by evidence. Citing Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq, they argue for fixed notional income at Rs 5,000 per month, which would revise several heads of compensation (notably loss of earnings and disability) and yield additional relief. They challenge the insurer’s liability arguments only to the extent that factual/licensing issues should be resolved with due process and evidence.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents emphasize strict adherence to evidentiary requirements, contending that the original award reflected proper evaluation. They argue that any enhancement should be grounded in established precedents, and that the license issue requires verification, especially given Ext B2 and prior orders. They urge that the MACT’s findings be upheld unless demonstrated error, and maintain that interest should follow statutory provisions while considering delays.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.	AIR 2011 SC 2951	Positive	Cited as the controlling principle for fixing notional income in MACT calculations, supporting the move to Rs 5,000/month.
Syed Sadiq v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.	2014 (2) SCC 735	Positive	Cited alongside Ramachandrappa to justify higher notional income and recalculation of compensation heads.

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 M.A.C.A. Nos.2793 of 2015 & 1322 of 2018 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 SATHISH NINAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944 MACA NO. 2793 OF 2015** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 404/2005 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , THRISSUR** ## **APPELLANT:** UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,THRISSUR NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, “SHARANYA”,HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11 BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 LIJO M.J.,S/O.JOSE, MALIEKKAL HOUSE, PUTHUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680 320 2 JOJU,S/O. ANTONY, KODIYAN HOUSE, PAYYAPPILLY MOOLA, PUTHUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680 320 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.08.2022, ALONG WITH MACA.1322/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA,** ## **1944** ## **MACA NO. 1322 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 404/2005 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , THRISSUR** ## **APPELLANT:** T.K. KISHORE,AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. KUTTAN, THUPPINIKATTU HOUSE, NAMBIAR ROAD, P.O.PUTHUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV SRI.K.A.SREEJITH ## **RESPONDENTS:** - 1 LIJO,S/O. JOSE, MALIAKKEL HOUSE, P.O.PUTHUR, THRISSUR - 680 014. - 2 JOJU,S/O. ANTONY, KODIYAN HOUSE, PAYYAPPILLIL MOOLA, P.O.PUTHUR, THRISSUR - 680 014. 3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,PARK HOUSE, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR - 1. BY ADVS. A.R.NIMOD SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW M.A.AUGUSTINE(K/000511/2005) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.08.2022, ALONG WITH MACA.2793/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **Sathish Ninan, J. ============================== M.A.C.A Nos.2793 of 2015 & 1322 of 2018 ========================== Dated this the 10[th] day of August, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** M.A.C.A No.1322 of 2018 is by the claimant in O.P(MV) No.404 of 2005 of the M.A.C.T, Thrissur, seeking enhancement of compensation. M.A.C.A No.2793 of 2015 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging its liability. 2. For the sake of convenience, M.A.C.A No.1322 of 2018 by the claimant is being taken up for consideration initially. As per Award dated 30.01.2015, the Tribunal granted a total compensation of D53,156.19 rounded to D53,160/- in the manner as hereunder: |Sl. No.|Head of Claim|Amount claimed (in rupees)|Amount awarded (in rupees)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Transport Charges|2,000/-|1,000/-| |2|Damage to clothing and articles|1,000/-|500/-| |3|Bystander expenses for 3 days|3,000/-|600/-| |4|Extra nourishment charges|1,000/-|500/-| ## M.A.C.A Nos.2793 of 2015 & 1322 of 2018 -: 2 :- |5|Medical bills|5000/-|3639.19| |---|---|---|---| |6|Pain and suffering|15,000/-|8,000/-| |7|Compensation for loss of earnings for 2 months (3500 x 2)|20,000/-|7,000/-| |8|Loss of convenience and enjoyment in life|40000|3,000/-| |9|Compensation for disability (3500x12x15x4.59%)||28917| ||Total||53156.19| 3. It is dissatisfied with the above that the claimant has approached this Court. 4. The grievance of the claimant is essentially regarding the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal. The injured – claimant is a farmer. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income notionally at D3,500/-. The accident was in the year 2005. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (2011 AIR (SC) 2951),**_ and _**Syed Sadiq v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.(2014(2) SCC 735)**_ , the ## M.A.C.A Nos.2793 of 2015 & 1322 of 2018 -: 3 :- notional income is liable to be fixed at D5,000/- per month. When the income is so calculated, the claims under the heads in serial numbers 7 and 9 are to be refixed. Under the head of compensation for loss of earning for two months, the amount that the claimant is entitled for is D5000 x 2 = 10,000/-, and under the head of compensation for disability, the total amount would be D38,556/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled to a further amount of D3,000/- under the head in serial No.7 and an amount of D9,639/- under the head in serial No.9. Thus, the claimant is entitled to further enhanced amount of D12,639/-. The Appeal was filed with a delay of 302 days. This court, as per order dated 01.12.2021, while condoning the delay had ordered that the claimant shall not be entitled for interest for period covered by the delay. 5. As regards M.A.C.A No.2793 of 2015, the same is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the liability ## M.A.C.A Nos.2793 of 2015 & 1322 of 2018 -: 4 :- fixed on the Company to satisfy the Award. The challenge is on the ground that the rider of the motor cycle did not hold a valid driving license at the time of accident. This Court had, taking note of Ext B2 communication from the RTO that the rider of the motor cycle, who is the second respondent in O.P(MV), did not have a valid driving license at the time of accident, and also taking note of the fact that the rider failed to produce the licence, as per judgment dated 17.10.2017 allowed the Appeal and absolved the Insurance Company. R.P No.404 of 2022 was filed by the rider claiming that he was holding a valid license at the time of the accident. Along with the Review Petition, the rider had filed Annexure A, true copy of Driving Licence, and Annexure B, true copy of Ration Card, to impress upon the Court that he held a valid driving license at the relevant time. In the light thereof, the Review Petition has been allowed by me and the appeal is M.A.C.A Nos.2793 of 2015 & 1322 of 2018 -: 5 :- reheard. A perusal of Annexure A shows that the name of the holder is shown as 'Shiju K.A', son of K.A Antony, Kodiyan House, Puthur P.O, Thrissur. In the cause title of the Award of the Tribunal, the name of the rider – second respondent is shown as 'Joju', son of Antony, with the same address. In the Review Petition, he contends that he is also known as 'Shiju' and that the records show such name, that he known by both the names and that it is one and the same person. As noticed above, but for his name, the name of the father and the address tallies. In the light of the above, I am of the opinion that it is only proper that an opportunity be granted to him to produce relevant documents and adduce evidence before the Tribunal to establish his identity and also that he held a valid driving license at the time of the accident in question. 6. Resultantly, the appeals are disposed of as hereunder. M.A.C.A Nos.2793 of 2015 & 1322 of 2018 -: 6 :- 7. M.A.C.A No.1322 of 2018 is allowed. The claimant is entitled to a further amount of D12,639/- as compensation, with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of petition till realisation, excluding the period of 302 days. The Insurance Company shall satisfy the enhanced award within one month from today. M.A.C.A 2793 of 2015 is allowed. The O.P(MV) is remanded back to the Tribunal solely for the purpose of determining whether the second respondent in the O.P(MV) held a valid Driving License at the time of the accident and the consequential liability of Insurance Company. Parties to appear before the Tribunal on 01.09.2022. Since no further adjudication is involved it shall not be necessary for the claimant to appear before the tribunal. Sd/- **Sathish Ninan, Judge** vdv