High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-12-08Review petition allowed

Nithin Maheswari v. National Insurance Company Limited & Dr. Prabhakaran

Case / Petition Number:RP No.534/2020 in CO No.200/2014 in MACA No.2066/2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2020-12-08
Court Decision / Holding: Review petition allowed. Notional income fixed at ₹22,500 per month (₹15,000 + 50%); compensation for loss of future earning power recalculated (₹30,29,400) and an additional head increased; the earlier ₹40,000 replaced by ₹10,49,800. The MACA judgment’s relevant portions are revised accordingly; the petition is allowed with updated figures.
Final Disposition: Review petition allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Nithin Maheswari

Respondents

National Insurance Company Limited
Dr. Prabhakaran

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• A.V.M. Salahuddeen

Counsels for Respondents

• Lal George, SC; P.M Haris

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court review petition (RP No.534/2020) filed by Nithin Maheswari, the Cross Objector, challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) award in OP(MV) No.1234/2011 and the subsequent MACA enhancement in MACA No.2066/2014. The petition arises from an injury claim where the MACT awarded ₹24,09,000 and the MACA later increased compensation; the insurer challenged the calculation of compensation for loss of future earning power and disability. The short ground is that, while computing notional income, the Court had deducted 50% for personal and living expenses, which the petitioner contends is impermissible in injury cases. The insurer argues that the prior approach already balanced enhancement for future prospects with a corresponding deduction, and that future-prospects allowances are generally applicable to death cases. The Court relies on Supreme Court precedents such as National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, and Sarla Verma to decide whether notional income in an injury case should reflect future prospects and whether personal-expenses deductions should apply. The judgment ultimately allows the review petition, fixes the notional income at ₹22,500 per month (₹15,000 + 50%), recalculates compensation for loss of future earning power, and increases the additional head by replacing the earlier ₹40,000 with ₹10,49,800. The review petition is allowed, with updated figures.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

50% addition towards future prospects (as per Pranay Sethi; Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh)
50% deduction towards personal and living expenses (Sarla Verma)
Future prospects in injury cases (Pappu Deo Yadav)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The review petitioner contends that in injury cases, the notional income used for calculating compensation should reflect future prospects and should not be reduced by a deduction for personal and living expenses. Citing Supreme Court precedents (Pranay Sethi, Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, Pappu Deo Yadav) the petitioner argues that 50% enhancement for future prospects and the corresponding deduction either should be re-evaluated or not applied, as in injury cases deduction for personal expenses is unjust. The review urges recalculation of notional income and head compensation, aiming to correct an injustice in the earlier MACA order and to align with contemporary jurisprudence on injuries.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer contends that the prior approach balanced 50% enhancement for future prospects with a 50% deduction for personal expenses, resulting in no net change; it argues that enhancements for future prospects are appropriate mainly in death cases, and that the Tribunal’s liberal compensation should stand. It relies on existing jurisprudence that supports the original deduction and cautions against altering notional income without consistent precedent.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others	[(2017) 16 SCC 680]	Positive	Cited to support the addition of future prospects in injury cases.
Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others	[(2013) 3 KLT 89]	Positive	Cited alongside Pranay Sethi to justify future-prospects enhancement.
Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another	[(2009) 6 SCC 121]	Overruled	The court substitutes the earlier rule of 50% deduction for personal expenses in injury cases with a revised approach.
Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar and others	[CDJ 2020 SC 727]	Positive	SC precedent recognizing enhancement towards future prospects in injury cases.

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 Nithin Maheswari v. National Insurance Company Limited & Dr. Prabhakaran 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 N.NAGARESH** **TUESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020/17TH AGRAHAYANA,1942** **RP.No.534 OF 2020 IN MACA. 2066/2014** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.07.2020 IN CO.No.200 OF 2014 IN MACA No.2066/2014 AGAINST OP(MV) No.1234/2011 PRL. MACT, KOZHIKODE.** ## **REVIEW PETITIONER/CROSS OBJECTOR/RESPONDENT NO.1:** **NITHIN MAHESWARI, AGED 36 YEARS S/O BHUVANESH MAHESWARI, RESIDING AT 989/C/9, GOWINDPURI, KALKAJI, DELHI.** **BY ADV. A.V.M.SALAHUDDEEN** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT NO.2:** **1 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NOOR COMPLEX, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673001. 2 DR.PRABHAKARAN, S/O.KELU, RESIDING AT KAVIL PARAMBU HOUSE, HOUSE NO.31/75 A, PALAKKOTTUVAYAL ROAD, P.O.MAYANAD, MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE-673008. R1 BY ADV.LAL GEORGE, SC, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED R2 BY ADV. P.M HARIS** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** RP No.534/2020 : 2 : ## **N. NAGARESH, J.** ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` ## R. P. No.534 of 2020 in ## C.O. No.200/2014 in MACA No.2066/2014 ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` _Dated this the 8[th] day of December, 2020_ ## **O R D E R** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The 1[st] respondent in MACA No.2066/2014 who is also the Cross Objector in C.O. No.200/2014, has filed this review petition against the judgment dated 13.07.2020 in the said MACA. The review petitioner is the petitioner in OP(MV) No.1234/2011 of the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, from which the MACA arose. 2. The MACT passed Award in the OP(MV) granting a compensation of ₹24,09,000/- to the review petitioner. The Insurer filed MACA and the review petitioner filed Cross Objection. This Court dismissed the MACA and granted additional compensation of ₹40,000/- to the Review Petitioner/Cross Objector. The said judgment is sought to be RP No.534/2020 : 3 : reviewed by the Cross Objector/Review Petitioner. 3. The short ground for review is that while calculating compensation for loss of future earning power/disability, this Court deducted 50% of income towards personal expenses. In injury cases, such deduction is impermissible. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1[st] respondent-Insurer resisted the review petition. The learned Standing Counsel argued that this Court found that the petitioner is entitled to 50% enhancement of income towards loss of future prospects and deduction of 50% towards personal expenses. Since the proposed enhancement and deduction is of the same percentage, this Court did not revise the notional income of the review petitioner. In fact, the review petitioner is not entitled to insist that while fixing his notional income, enhancement should be given towards loss of future prospects. According to the Standing Counsel for the 1[st] respondent, allowances for loss of future prospects are made only for calculating compensation in RP No.534/2020 : 4 : death cases. 5. The Standing Counsel further argued that the Tribunal has granted compensation liberally and the compensation is much on a higher side. This Court enhanced the total compensation further. The functional disability of the injured was fixed at 66%. For this reason also, the deduction towards personal expenses is justified while fixing notional income. 6. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the 1[st] respondent. 7. This Court in the judgment in MACA, while agreeing with the Tribunal’s findings as to the monthly income of the review petitioner as ₹15,000/-, held as follows:- “It is seen that the Tribunal has not considered future prospects, while fixing the notional monthly income for the purpose of calculating disability compensation. Going by the judgments of the Apex Court in _**National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others**_ [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and _**Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others**_ [2013 (3) KLT 89], the 1[st] respondent should be granted an addition of 50% towards future prospects. But, since the 1[st] respondent was a bachelor at the time of the accident, going by the judgment in _**Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another**_ [(2009) 6 SCC 121], 50% of the income has to be RP No.534/2020 : 5 : deducted towards personal and living expenses of the 1[st] respondent. The Tribunal has not deducted any amount towards personal expenses. Since the addition towards future prospects and deduction towards personal and living expenses, both stands at 50%, there is no requirement for changing the notional income fixed by the Tribunal.” 8. Normally, deductions towards personal and living expenses are made while calculating the notional income of a person who died in the motor accident. Deductions are made towards personal and living expenses on the premises that had the deceased been alive, he would have expended some amount towards his personal expenses and only the remaining income would have been expended for the family. It is for this reason that such deductions are made. 9. When a person survives a motor accident with injuries and disability, he would be spending amounts towards personal and living expenses during his life. Therefore, making deduction towards personal expenses for arriving at notional income of an injured person, would indeed result in injustice. 10. As regards the argument of the Standing Counsel RP No.534/2020 : 6 : for the 1[st] respondent that no enhancement need be made in the notional income of the review petitioner towards future prospects since future prospects are allowed only in death cases, this Court finds that the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the issue in _**Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar and others** [CDJ 2020 SC 727]_ and has granted enhancement towards future prospects, in a case of injury. Therefore, the argument that enhancement in notional income counting future prospects cannot be made in an injury case, cannot be accepted. 11. In the Award, the Tribunal did not make any provision for future prospects of the injured. Going by the age and percentage of disability, the review petitioner was entitled to be compensated for loss of future prospects. However, this Court observed that even if 50% is enhanced towards future prospects, still when deduction is made for personal and living expenses, there would be in effect no change in the notional income of the petitioner. The fact that deduction towards personal expenses is not to be made in RP No.534/2020 : 7 : an injury case, was omitted to be noted by this Court and to that extent, this Court is of the opinion that a review of the judgment is warranted. 12. Accordingly, the following part of paragraph 15 namely, “But, since the 1[st] respondent was a bachelor at the time of the accident, going by the judgment in **Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another** [(2009) 6 SCC 121], 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the 1st respondent. The Tribunal has not deducted any amount towards personal expenses. Since the addition towards future prospects and deduction towards personal and living expenses, both stands at 50%, there is no requirement for changing the notional income fixed by the Tribunal.”, would stand deleted and in its place, the following findings ## should be substituted:- Accordingly, the notional income of the petitioner for calculating compensation for loss of future earning power should be fixed as ₹22,500/(₹15,000/- + 50% thereof). The petitioner will therefore be eligible for a compensation of ₹30,29,400/- (₹2,70,000 x 17 x 66/100) under the head. The Tribunal has awarded ₹20,19,600/under this head. The 1[st] respondent therefore, would be entitled to an additional compensation of **₹10,09,800/-** under the head compensation for loss of future earning power. RP No.534/2020 : 8 : 13. The amount ₹40,000/-, the additional compensation to which the review petitioner is found entitled to in the operative portion of the judgment in MACA, contained in the last paragraph (page 16) of the judgment, would stand substituted as **₹10,49,800/-** . Review petition is allowed as above. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks/03.12.2020