M.K. Narayanan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2021-08-02
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation by Rs.21,400; 7% interest on the enhanced amount from the petition date to deposit; deposit of enhanced amount to be made before two months from receipt of certified copy; Tribunal to disburse the enhanced compensation in accordance with law; final judgment modified accordingly.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; final modification of compensation quantum and terms of deposit/disbursement.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M.K.NARAYANAN S/O.S.KRISHNA PANICKER

Respondents

M/S. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Babu S. Nair

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Lal K. Joseph

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, in MACA No. 2453 of 2010, heard an appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri’s award in OP(MV) No.1408/2001 arising from a 29 May 2001 accident. Narayanan, the pillion rider, sustained head injury and a fracture while travelling on a motorcycle collided with a mini-bus (KL-05/A-6637). The Tribunal partly allowed the claim, awarding Rs.80,756 plus 6% interest from the petition date and costs from the insurer, but Narayanan challenged the quantum. The insurer (New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) contested the amount, with some respondents ex parte; it admitted the motorcycle was insured but attributed negligence to the bus driver. Narayanan argued that the Tribunal undervalued his losses and notional income. The High Court, citing Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236, re-fixes the notional income at Rs.3,000 per month (the accident occurred in 2001) and recalculates heads of compensation. The court increases loss of earnings to Rs.18,000 (an extra Rs.10,000); bystander expenses to Rs.2,800 (Rs.200 per day for 14 days); and pain and suffering to Rs.20,000 (extra Rs.10,000). Other heads remain reasonable. Overall enhancement is Rs.21,400, with 7% interest on the enhanced amount from the petition date, and costs. The appeal is allowed in part, with directions to deposit the enhanced sum within two months and disburse per law.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in applying a too-low notional income and in the quantum of compensation awarded under heads such as loss of earnings, bystander expenses, and pain and suffering. Relying on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236, the applicant argues for a higher notional income and recalculated losses, contending that the evidence supports greater damages given the 2001 accident and his occupation/earnings profile. The appellant seeks enhancement across multiple heads to reflect true financial loss and pain and inconvenience from the injury.

Contentions of Respondents

The 2nd respondent insurer concedes insurance coverage but argues liability pertains to the bus driver’s negligence; it did not contest liability by other respondents and contends that the quantum should not be overstated. The respondents maintain that the Tribunal’s notional income and compensation structure were reasonable, and the appeal should not disturb the award beyond permissible limits. As liability is not in dispute, the focus is on quantum, with emphasis on notional income benchmarks and proportional liability.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Cited as the authority for determining notional income; used to justify increasing the notional income to Rs.3,000 per month for a 2001 accident and recalculating compensation heads.

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** **MONDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1943** **MACA NO. 2453 OF 2010** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(MV) 1408/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS** **TRIBUNAL , MANJERI** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** M.K.NARAYANAN S/O.S.KRISHNA PANICKER,, MALAMEL KODUGALATH HOUSE, PALACE ROAD, NILAMBUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.BABU S. NAIR ## **RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:** M/S.NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. IST FLOOR, VARIKKODAN BUILDING, NILAMBUR ROAD, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **MACA NO. 2453 OF 2010** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant was the petitioner in O.P(MV) No.1408/2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. The respondent in the appeal was the 2[nd] respondent before the Tribunal. The parties are for the sake of convenience referred to as per their status in the claim petition. 2. The facts in brief, relevant for the determination of the appeal, are: on 29.5.2001 while the petitioner was travelling as pillion on a motorcycle from Wandoor to Nilambur, a mini bus bearing Reg.No.KL-05/A -6637 driven by the 3[rd] respondent hit the motorcycle. The motorcycle was driven by the 1[st] respondent and insured with the 2[nd] respondent. The bus was owned by the 4[th] respondent and insured with the 5[th] respondent. The petitioner contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the drivers of both **MACA NO. 2453 OF 2010** **3** the vehicles Therefore, the petitioner asserted that the respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to him, which he quantified at Rs.1,75,000/-. 3. The respondents 1,3 and 5 did not contest the proceedings and were set ex parte. 4. The 2[nd] respondent had filed a written statement admitting that the motorcycle had a valid insurance coverage. However, it was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 3[rd] respondent – the driver of the bus. 5. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned award allowed the claim petition, in part, by permitting the petitioner to realise an amount of Rs.80,756/- 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 2[nd] respondent. **MACA NO. 2453 OF 2010** **4** 6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the petitioner is in appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent/insurer of the motorcycle. 8. The appellant examined himself as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A9 series were marked in evidence. The respondents did not adduce any evidence. 9. The sole question that emerges for consideration in the appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just? ## **Notional income** 10. The petitioner had stated that he was a Medical Representative by profession and earning a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. The Tribunal fixed the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.2,000/- per month. 11. In **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal** **MACA NO. 2453 OF 2010** **5** ## **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. 12. Following the ratio in the afore-cited decision and taking note of the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2001, I re-fix the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.3,000/- per month. ## **Loss of earnings** 13. It is on record that the petitioner had sustained a head injury and a fracture of the fronto parietal bone. He was hospitalised for a period of 14 days. The Tribunal held that the petitioner was incapacitated for a period of six months. 14. In view of the re-fixation of the notional income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month, I re-fix the compensation under the head 'loss of earnings' at **MACA NO. 2453 OF 2010** **6** Rs.18,000/-,i.e., an enhancement of Rs.10,000/-. ## **Bystander expenses** 15. It is proved as per Ext.A2 wound certificate and Ext.A3 discharge summary that the petitioner was treated as an inpatient for a period of 14 days. The Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.1,400/- towards 'bystander expenses', at the rate of Rs.100/-, which according to me is on the lower side. Therefore, I re-fix the 'bystander expenses' at Rs.200/- per day for a period of 14 days, i.e., a total amount of Rs.2,800/-. ## **Pain and suffering** 16. The appellant had sustained a head injury and a fracture of the fronto parietal bone. He was treated as an inpatient for a period of 14 days. The Tribunal also assessed that the petitioner has a disability of 15%. However, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for 'pain and suffering' as **MACA NO. 2453 OF 2010** **7** against the claim of Rs.25,000/- which again according to me is on the lower side. Therefore, I enhance the compensation under the said head by a further amount of Rs.10,000/-. ## **Other heads of claim** 17. With respect to the other heads of compensation, I find that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable and just compensation. 18. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record and the law laid down in the afore-cited decision, I am of the definite opinion that the appellant/petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation as modified and re-calculated above, i.e., an enhancement by a further amount of Rs.21,400/namely Rs.10,000/- under the head 'loss of earning', Rs.1400/- under the head 'bystander expenses' and Rs.10,000/- under the head compensation for 'pain and **MACA NO. 2453 OF 2010** **8** suffering'. In the result, the appeal is allowed, in part, by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.21,400/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of deposit, after deducting the interest for a period of 1630 days, i.e., the period of delay in representing the appeal and as ordered by this Court on 22.11.2010 in C.M.Appli. No.3070/2010, and proportionate costs. The 2[nd] respondent shall pay the the enhanced compensation by depositing the amount awarded in the appeal before the Tribunal with interest and proportionate costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The Tribunal shall disburse the enhanced compensation to the appellant/petitioner, in accordance with law. ma/02/08/2021 Sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**