High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-08-04Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; ...

Mohammed Anas v. Harikumar; P. Mohammed Haji; The New India Assurance Company Limited

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.714 OF 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2020-08-04
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The High Court enhanced the compensation as follows: notional income fixed at Rs.9,000 per month; disability increased to 40%; future treatment and other heads adjusted accordingly; total enhanced compensation Rs.11,74,675. Payment to be made within three months with simple interest at 9% from the date of the award, after deducting already paid amounts. NEFT/RTGS transfer to the appellant’s bank account; no interest on future medical expenses.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; directions for payment within three months with 9% interest; NEFT/RTGS transfer; deductions for amounts already paid.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mohammed Anas

Respondents

Harikumar
P. Mohammed Haji
The New India Assurance Company Limited

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. K. Vidyasagar
• Sri. Mohammed Ismail Avunhhippuram

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. E. Narayanan

Case Synopsis & Summary

Mohammed Anas, the appellant, sustained facial nerve palsy, tinnitus, and epiphora following a bus accident on 16.04.2009, when the bus driver was found negligent. The bus was insured, and the appellant challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, award in OP(MV) No.1314/2009 dated 03.12.2012, seeking higher compensation. The Tribunal fixed permanent disability at 20% after a medical board assessment and adopted a notional monthly income of Rs. 4,000, despite the appellant presenting a Bangalore job offer as a graphic designer for Rs.9,000 per month and a future medical expense projection of about Rs.95,000. The appellant argued for an increase in income, inclusion of future prospects, a higher disability percentage, and reimbursement of future treatment costs. The High Court relied on Ramachandrappa v. Manager (2011) 13 SCC 236 and Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 to apply the notional income principle and incremental enhancement; it held that the appellant’s income should be fixed at Rs.9,000 per month and that disability could be enhanced to 40% given facial disfigurement and its vocational impact, without double counting future prospects. The court then calculated enhanced compensation heads, totaling Rs.11,74,675, and directed payment within three months at 9% interest, with NEFT/RTGS transfer and deduction for amounts already paid.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income principle for compensation (Ramachandrappa v. Manager)
Incremental enhancement in notional income for unorganized/self-employed (Pranay Sethi; Ramachandrappa)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in applying a low notional income of Rs.4,000 per month and failed to consider the Bangalore job offer of Rs.9,000 per month for a graphic designer. He urged an increase in disability beyond 20% due to facial disfigurement, inclusion of future prospects, and reimbursement of future medical expenses (about Rs.95,000), arguing that these enhancements were supported by the pre- and post- accident photographs and medical records. He also argued that incremental income should be considered in light of cost of living and career prospects.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defended the Tribunal’s decision, arguing that the notional income and disability were rightly assessed, and that no substantial evidence justified higher compensation. They disputed the inclusion of future prospects and argued against inflationary adjustments beyond the Tribunal’s award, urging that the award should stand as verified by the Medical Board and Tribunal.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Used to justify notional income and the baseline for compensation assessment.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Lays down incremental enhancement principle for unorganised/self-employed workers, applied here to income updating.

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 Mohammed Anas v. Harikumar; P. Mohammed Haji; 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.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1942** ## **MACA.No.714 OF 2013** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP[MV] NO.1314/2009 DATED 03-12-2012 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **MOHAMMED ANAS, AGED 26 YEARS S/O.P.P.MOHAMMEDALI, BEEVI HOUSE, NILAMBUR, CHANDAKKUNNU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679329.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.VIDYASAGAR SRI.MOHAMED ISMAYIL AVUNHIPPURAM** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 HARIKUMAR, S/O.RAMAN NAIR V.T., AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT, DWARAKA, MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673602. 2 P. MOHAMMED HAJI AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT, POTTAMMAL HOUSE, PERINGOLOM, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673571. 3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, SHAFEER COMPLEX, 6/975D, OPPOSITE YMCA, KANNUR ROAD, CALICUT-673004.** ## **R2 BY ADV. E.NARAYANAN** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA.No.714 OF 2013 2 ## **JUDGMENT** **The appellant is the injured in an accident, which occurred on 16.04.2009. The accident occurred while the appellant was travelling in a bus and the bus driver was found to be negligent. The bus was also covered by a valid insurance policy. The appellant seeks enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant suffered facial nerve palsy, continuous tinnitus (sound in the ear) due to the impact on the temporal bone and continuous epiphora (tear secretion) from the left eye. He had also been advised to undergo a palliative surgical procedure to improve the facial nerve paralysis. The Tribunal found that the District Medical Board, Manjery assessed permanent disability of the appellant at 20%, which is evident from Ext.X1 report. The appellant had also produced the appointment letter** MACA.No.714 OF 2013 3 **issued by a firm in Bangalore, requiring him to join in the said firm as a Graphic Designer with a salary of Rs.9,000/-. The appellant could not join the said employment due to the accident.** **2. The income adopted by the Tribunal is alleged to be very low. The appellant asserted it to be Rs.9,000/- per month. No additions were made for future prospects. The Tribunal adopted only an amount of Rs.4,000/- as the notional monthly income. Further, it is stated that there was a palliative surgical procedure, which the appellant had to undergo, for which the expenses were projected as about Rs.95,000/- as seen from Annexure A6 Treatment Certificate. It is also argued that the appellant suffered serious disfigurement and his employment opportunities were also affected by reason of the defect caused to the left eye. The Tribunal examined the photographs of** MACA.No.714 OF 2013 4 **the appellant's case prior to the accident and after the accident as is seen from Exts.A17 & A17(a). He was also present before the Tribunal and it was noticed that there was considerable disfigurement of his face. In such circumstances, there should be additions made with respect to all the heads and there should also be a disability assessed at 50%, is the contention of the appellant.** **3. As far as the earning capacity is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in** _**Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited**_ **[(2011) 13 SCC 236] fixed the notional income of a coolie at Rs.4,500/- in the year 2004. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also recognised the principle that there would be incremental enhancement in the case of even selfemployed individuals in the un-organised sector** MACA.No.714 OF 2013 5 **(** _**National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (2017)16 SCC 680**_ **). With respect to an unspecified job of a coolie considering the increase in cost of living and economic advancements over the years, it can be safely assumed that even a coolie would be eligible for incremental addition of at least Rs.500/- in every subsequent year. Going by the dictum, a coolie in the year 2009, in which the instant accident occurred, would have been entitled to a fixation of notional income of Rs.7,000/-. In such circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that the income can be fixed at Rs.9,000/- for the appellant, who was a graphic designer and had an offer of employment for that amount, which offer was produced before the Tribunal. There could be no addition made for future prospects.** **4. Now the question is of disability, which has been assessed at 20% by a Medical Board as seen** MACA.No.714 OF 2013 6 **from Ext.X1. It is seen that the appellant had suffered disfigurement of his face and his one eye could not be shut, seriously affecting his chosen vocation of a Graphic Designer. However, if a corrective surgery is carried out, in that event there could be no addition for future prospects. The appellant cannot claim for both together. This Court is convinced especially from the observations of the Tribunal; that the disability can be assessed at 40% for the appellant, who was a qualified Graphic Designer. The appellant is also entitled for the expenses for future treatment. Considering the pain and suffering, the appellant has to be granted enhancement of the same as also enhancement with respect to loss of amenities and future treatments. The appellant was hospitalised for 19 days.** **5. Accordingly, the appellant is granted** MACA.No.714 OF 2013 7 ## **the following enhancements:** |**Sl.** **No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount** **awarded by** **the** **Tribunal** `|**Total amount** **after** **enhancement** **in appeal** `| |---|---|---|---| |**1**|**Loss of earning** **(6 months)**|**24,000**|**54,000** **(9000*6)**| |**2**|**Medical and miscellaneous** **expenses**|**1,38,075**|**1,38,075**| |**3**|**Future treatment**|**20,000**|**95,000**| |**4**|**Pain and suffering**|**20,000**|**50,000**| |**5**|**Bystander's expenses**|**1,900**|**4,750** **[19x250]**| |**6**|**Damage to clothings**|**250**|**250**| |**7**|**Transportation expenses**|**1,750**|**5,000**| |**8**|**Loss of amenities**|**25,000**|**50,000**| |**9**|**Loss of future earning** **capacity**|**1,72,800**|**7,77,600** **[9000*12*18*40%]**| ||**Total**|**4,03,775**|**11,74,675**| **MACA would stand allowed. The payment as** MACA.No.714 OF 2013 8 **per the award and the modification made herein shall be made within three months with interest as directed by the Tribunal @ 9%, after deducting the amounts already paid or deposited. Interest shall not run for future medical expenses. The appellant shall produce a copy of a cancelled cheque of the Bank Account in a Nationalized Bank in his name, with copy of AADHAAR or acceptable identification, before the Tribunal within one month, with copy to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company shall credit the amounts through NEFT/RTGS mode to the said account, failing which the Tribunal shall proceed with the recovery in accordance with law.** ## **Sd/-** ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge.** **sp/04/08/2020** **//True Copy//** **P.A. To Judge**