New India Assurance Company Limited v. Marimuthu S/o Chinnaswami Nadar

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. Pratheep Kumar
Judgment Date: 2025-03-12
Court Decision / Holding: In part allowed: enhanced total compensation Rs. 4,40,928 payable with interest at 8% from the petition date and two months time to deposit; Tribunal disbursement to follow upon deposit.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation to Rs. 4,40,928 with interest and costs; directions issued for payment within two months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

New India Assurance Company Limited

Respondents

Marimuthu S/o Chinnaswami Nadar

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

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

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Joshy Thannickamattam
• Sri. A.N. Santhosh

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Motor Accident Claims Appeal arises from an accident on 18.12.2012 on Pathanamthitta-Erumeli public road, where Marimuthu (the Respondent/Petitioner) claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held the driver negligent and awarded Rs. 3,62,378 as total compensation payable by the insurer. The insurer challenged the quantum, contending that the addition of 30% for future prospects was excessive and that the claimant had not established his actual income; it invoked the Ramachandrappa principle to fix notional income at Rs. 8,500. The petitioner argued that his income was higher (alleged tailoring business earning Rs. 40,000 per month) and that future prospects should be applied as per Pranay Sethi and the multiplier as per Sarla Verma. The court, after considering these authorities, held the notional income at Rs. 8,500, added 25% for future prospects, and applied a multiplier of 14. It revisited several heads of loss (earning, disability, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, extra nourishment) and enhanced them, resulting in a total revised compensation of Rs. 4,40,928. The appeal is allowed in part; the insurer is to deposit Rs. 4,40,928 with interest at 8% from the petition date, within two months, and costs on proportionate basis. The Tribunal will disburse the amount timely.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income rule for unproved job (Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011)
Future prospects formula (Pranay Sethi) – 25% addition
Multiplier rule (Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009) – multiplier 14

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The insurer contends that adding 30% for future prospects is excessive and that notional income should be fixed at Rs. 8,500 (Ramachandrappa) since the claimant could not prove his income; challenges the Tribunal’s assessment and seeks a more conservative calculation.

Contentions of Respondents

The claimant argues for a higher notional income and applying the 25% future prospects with appropriate disability and loss heads; asserts the Tribunal undervalued several heads of compensation and seeks a fair recalculation per Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma guidelines.

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 at Rs. 8,500 where income proof is lacking.
National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Guidelines on future prospects (25%) and overall computation applied in assessment.
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	(2009) 6 SCC 121	Positive	Multiplier of 14 adopted for calculation of compensation.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

_**MACA. No.3269/2015**_ _**1**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** # **2025:KER:25103** # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 3269 OF 2015** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 29.06.2015 IN OPMV NO.143 OF 2013 OF IV ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., PATHANAMTHITTA** **APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:** **THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED PATHNAMTHITTA NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE,M.G. ROAD, KOCHI-11** **BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)-SC SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW** ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:** **MARIMUTHU S/O CHINNASWAMI NADAR, SEBBA EHAVANAM, DOOR NO. 241/30 AZ, GANDHI NAGAR, CHETTIYARPETTI VILLAGE, REJAPALAYAM, TAMILNADU-600013** **BY ADVS. SRI.JOSHY THANNICKAMATTAM SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** _**MACA. No.3269/2015**_ _**2**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:25103** ## J U D G M E N T Dated this the 12[th] day of March, 2025 The 3[rd] respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No.143/2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta 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 18.12.2012 According to the petitioner, on 18.12.2012 at about 9.15. a.m., while he was riding pillion on a motor cycle through Pathanamthitta-Erumeli public road, a car bearing registration No.KL-01E-8001, driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle and as a result of which he fell down and sustained serious injuries. 3. The 1[st] respondent is the driver, the 2[nd] respondent is the owner and 3[rd] respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to _**MACA. No.3269/2015**_ _**3**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:25103** the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.14,45,000/-. 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 oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A25. 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.3,62,378/- and directed the insurer to pay the same. 7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Respondent No.3 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?_ _**MACA. No.3269/2015**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [6 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:25103** 9. Heard Sri.P. Jacob Mathew, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri. A. N. Santhosh, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd ] respondent. 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/insurer is that adding 30% income towards future prospects is on the higher side. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.7,500/- is on the lower side. According to him, the petitioner was conducting tailoring cum textile business, earning Rs.40,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.7,500/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. 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 2012 will come to Rs.8,500/-. Since the petitioner _**MACA. No.3269/2015**_ _**5**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:25103** could not prove his job or income as claimed in the OP, in the light of a dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Ramachandrappa (supra)** , his notional income is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.8,500/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: “ _Type II open fracture on both the bones in right leg, pateliar tendon injury, deep lacerated wound posterior aspect of right leg etc.”_ 13. The petitioner was treated as inpatient for five days. As per Exhibit A21 disability certificate issue dby the Medical Board, the petitioner suffered 15% permanent physical disability. 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 15%, as fixed by the Tribunal. 14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 43 years. Therefore, 25% of the monthly income is to be added towards future _**MACA. No.3269/2015**_ _**6**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:25103** 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 14, 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.2,67,750/- 15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs22,500/- being the income for 3 months @ Rs.7500/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that considering the nature of injuries sustained, the compensation awarded on the head ‘loss of earning’ is on the lower side. In this case, the petitioner sustained Type II open fracture on both the bones in right leg, pateliar tendon injury in addition to deep lacerated wound posterior aspect of right leg. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained and the percentage of disability suffered by the petitioner, the petitioner might have lost income at least for a period of 6 months. Therefore, towards 'loss of income' the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.51,000/- (8500x 6 months). _**MACA. No.3269/2015**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [6 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:25103** 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs. 30,000/-was awarded and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.2,000/- 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 serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 5 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 amenities of life' and 'extra nourishment' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs50,000/-, Rs.35,000/- 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. **4,40,928/-** , as modified and recalculated above and _**MACA. No.3269/2015**_ _**8**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:25103** 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|22,500/-|51,000/-(8500x6)| |2|Pain and suffering|30,000/-|50,000/-| |3|Transport to hospital|1,000/-|1,000/-| |4|Extra nourishment|2,000/-|5,000/-| |5|Compensation for disability|2,45,700/-|2,67,750/-| |6|Loss of amenities|30,000/-|35,000/-| |7|Medical expenses|29,178/-|29178| |8|Bystander expenses|2,000/-|2,000/-| ||**Total**|**3,62,378/-**|**4,40,928/-**| ||Enhanced Rs.78,550/-||| 20. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs. **4,40,928/-** (Rupees four lakh forty thousand nine hundred and twenty eight only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest at the rate ordered by the Tribunal), from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. **.** (Enhanced compensation will carry interest @8%) _**MACA. No.3269/2015**_ _**9**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:25103** 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.