High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-07-25Appeal partly allowed; enhanced compensation aw...

Prasanna P.V. v. Nidheesh C.K. and others (MACA 2521/19)

Case / Petition Number:MACA 2521/19

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Sophy Thomas
Judgment Date: 2024-07-25
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed to the extent set out in the judgment. The court fixes the notional monthly income at Rs. 9,500 and recalculates compensation for six months of loss of earnings, adds Rs. 1,000 for extra nourishment, Rs. 2,000 for bystander expenses, and Rs. 7,500 for pain and suffering. Disability is fixed at 3% WBD based on Ext. X1; disability compensation is recalculated to Rs. 58,140. Loss of amenities is increased to Rs. 20,000. The Tribunal’s overall compensation is enhanced by Rs. 83,080, which the 3rd respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition to the date of deposit, within two months, and to disburse to the appellant after deducting liabilities, if any. No costs are awarded. The insurer is to comply as directed.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed; enhanced compensation awarded to the claimant; insurer directed to deposit enhanced amount; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Prasanna P.V.

Respondents

Nidheesh C.K.
K.V.Vijayan (died)
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Rethi
Renjith P.K.
Ratheeshan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• C. P. Peethambaran

Counsels for Respondents

• A. R. George (Senior Counsel)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal arising from the award passed by the Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, on 3 December 2018, in OP(MV) No. 567 of 2014. The appellant, Prasanna P.V., a 28-year-old coolie, sustained serious injuries when the bus she was travelling in (KL-13/T-2577) collided with another bus driven by the 1st respondent. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,30,106 as compensation, which the appellant challenged as inadequate. The High Court examines several heads of compensation, including loss of earnings, nourishment, bystander expenses, pain and suffering, disability, and loss of amenities. The appellant contends that her notional income should be fixed at Rs. 9,500 per month based on the Ramachandrappa principle. The court adopts that notional income and recalculates the compensation, including six months of loss of earnings (instead of three), Rs. 1,000 for extra nourishment, Rs. 2,000 for bystander expenses, and Rs. 7,500 more for pain and suffering. It scrutinizes Ext. X1 (3% whole body disability) against Ext. X2 (30% disability) and fixes disability accordingly, resulting in Rs. 58,140 for permanent disability. Loss of amenities is increased to Rs. 20,000. The total enhanced compensation amounts to Rs. 83,080, with 9% interest, to be deposited by the insurer within two months. The appeal is allowed to that extent; costs are not awarded.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the notional income at Rs. 6,000 per month while the appellant, a coolie, earned Rs. 10,000 monthly. Relying on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 2011 SC 2951), the appellant argued for a notional income of Rs. 9,500 per month. The appellant urged enhancement across several heads: six months of loss of earnings (instead of three), Rs. 1,000 more for extra nourishment, Rs. 2,000 for bystander expenses, Rs. 7,500 more for pain and suffering, and a corrected disability assessment based on Ext. X1 (3% WBD vs Ext. X2’s 30%). The court was urged to double the loss of amenities, from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 20,000, and to determine the total enhanced compensation as Rs. 83,080, with interest and timely deposit by the insurer.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the Tribunal’s award was just and reasonable and required no modification. They relied on the Tribunal’s assessment of damages and urged against the adoption of the Ramachandrappa-based notional income. They argued the Ext. X2 disability certificate was not properly verified and sought to sustain the Tribunal’s reliance on Ext. X1 showing 3% whole body disability. They also argued for no liability to pay beyond the award and questioned the need to alter heads of compensation as suggested by the appellant.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	AIR 2011 SC 2951	Positive	Used to justify fixing a notional income for a coolie at Rs.9,500 per month.

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 Prasanna P.V. v. Nidheesh C.K. and others (MACA 2521/19) 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 MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 25[ TH ] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1946`** ## **`MACA NO. 2521 OF 2019`** ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 03.12.2018 IN OP(MV) NO.567 OF 2014 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY ``` ## **`APPELLANT/PETITIONER:`** ``` PRASANNA P.V., AGED 33 YEARS, W/O. RATHEESH, MATHANKULAGARA HOUSE, IRIVERI, P.O.IRIVERI, KANNUR DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADV C.P.PEETHAMBARAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 NIDHEESH C.K.,`** ``` S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, CHETTIYANKANDY HOUSE, MAVILAYI, P.O.MAVILAYI, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 622. ``` ## **`2 K.V.VIJAYAN (DIED).`** ``` 3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, S.N.PARK ROAD, KANNUR-670 001. ``` ## **`4 RETHI,`** ``` W/O.VIJAYAN, SREEBHAVANAM, POTHUVACHERI, P.O.KADACHIRA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 621. ``` MACA 2521/19 2 ``` 5 RENJITH P.K., ``` ``` S/O.VIJAYAN, SREEBHAVANAM, POTHUVACHERI, P.O.KADACHIRA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 621. ``` ``` 6 RATHEESHAN, ``` ``` S/O.VIJAYAN, SREEBHAVANAM, POTHUVACHERI, P.O.KADACHIRA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 621. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.A.R.GEORGE, SC, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` MACA 2521/19 3 ## **J U D G M E N T** This appeal is at the instance of the claimant in OP(MV)No.567 of 2014 on the file of Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, impugning the award on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. 2. On 03.04.2014, at 4.45 p.m., while the appellant was travelling in KL-13/T-2577 bus, driven by the 1st respondent, due to his rash and negligent driving, the bus dashed against a school bus, and she sustained serious injuries. She sustained injuries of multiple lacerations and tendon injury. She was a 28 year old coolie, earning monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. She approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. But learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.1,30,106/-. Hence this appeal. 3. The 1st respondent was the driver of the offending stage carriage, 2nd respondent was its owner and the 3rd respondent was its Insurer. Since the 2nd respondent-owner passed away, his legal heirs were impleaded as additional respondents 4 to 6. The accident as well as the insurance of MACA 2521/19 4 the offending stage carriage is admitted by the 3rd respondent-Insurer. But according to them, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and hence it needs no modification. 4. Now this Court is called upon to answer whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned award, warranting interference by this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-Insurer. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though the appellant was earning monthly income of Rs.10,000/-, the Tribunal fixed her notional income @ Rs.6,000/only. He would rely on the decision **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951]** , to say that a coolie worker was eligible to get notional income fixed @ Rs.9,500/- in the year 2014. Accepting that argument, this Court is inclined to fix her notional income @ Rs.9,500/- per month. MACA 2521/19 5 7. Learned Tribunal assessed loss of earning for a period of three months. The appellant suffered multiple lacerations on her right hand and tendon injury of third, fourth and fifth fingers. She was a coolie worker and the tendon injuries were on the right hand. So, this Court is inclined to take her loss of earning for a period of six months. @ Rs.9,500/- per month, she is entitled to get Rs.57,000/-. After deducting Rs.18,000/awarded by the Tribunal, she is entitled to get the balance Rs.39,000/-. 8. Towards extra nourishment, only Rs.1,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. She was hospitalised for 4 days, and she had suffered tendon injury of three fingers on her right hand. So, this Court is inclined to award Rs.1,000/- more under the head ‘extra nourishment’. 9. Towards bystander expenses, no amount was awarded by the Tribunal. At least during the period of hospitalisation, she might have been in need of a bystander, since she had suffered multiple tendon injury on her right hand. @ Rs.500/per day, for 4 days of hospitalisation, the appellant can be MACA 2521/19 6 awarded bystander expenses of Rs.2,000/-. 10. Towards pain and suffering, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/-. Since there was multiple tendon injury with hospitalisation of 4 days, which resulted in disability also, this Court is inclined to award Rs.7,500/- more under the head ‘pain and suffering’. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as per Ext.X2 Disability Certificate, the appellant had suffered 30% permanent disability. But Ext.X1 Disability Certificate dated 22.06.2016 will show that she had suffered only 3% whole body disability. Ext.X2 Disability Certificate was obtained by the appellant without any direction from the Tribunal and even without filing any objection to Ext.X1 Disability Certificate. In paragraph 17 of the impugned award, learned Tribunal has noted that the petitioner, without taking any recourse to set aside Ext.X1 report, approached the Medical Board of Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, without any sanction or permission from the Tribunal and obtained Ext.X2 Disability Certificate, where disability was noted as 30%. In MACA 2521/19 7 Ext.X2 Certificate, it is not mentioned that the Doctor had verified the medical records of the appellant. Only one Doctor has signed in Ext.X2 Certificate, and it is not even mentioned, what was his speciality. It is not mentioned what kind of disability the appellant was suffering, at the time of issuing that Certificate. So the Tribunal rightly rejected Ext.X2 Disability Certificate. Based on Ext.X1 Disability Certificate, her percentage of whole body disability was 3%. We have fixed her notional income @ Rs.9,500/-. So the disability compensation can be assessed as Rs.58,140/- (9,500x12x17x3/100). After deducting Rs.34,560/- already awarded by the Tribunal, she is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.23,580/-. 12. Towards loss of amenities, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/-. Ext.X1 Disability Certificate shows that the appellant had suffered multiple tendon injury on her right wrist and even after repair, there was partial ankylosis of right hand. Considering that aspect, this Court is inclined to award Rs.10,000/- more under the head ‘loss of amenities’. 13. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all MACA 2521/19 8 other heads seems to be reasonable, and hence it needs no modification. |odification.|||| |---|---|---|---| |Head of claim|Amount awarded by the Tribunal|Amount awarded in appeal|Difference to be drawn as enhanced compensation| |Loss of earning|Rs.18,000/-|Rs.57,000/-|Rs.39,000/-| |Extra nourishment|Rs.1,000/-|Rs.2,000/-|Rs.1,000/-| |Bystander expenses|…..|Rs.2,000/-|Rs.2,000/-| |Pain and suffering|Rs.30,000/-|Rs.37,500/-|Rs.7,500/-| |Compensation for permanent disability|Rs.34,560/-|Rs.58,140/-|Rs.23,580/-| |Loss of amenities|Rs.10,000/-|Rs.20,000/-|Rs.10,000/-| |Total|||**Rs.83,080**/-| 14. In the result, the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.83,080/-. 15. The 3rd respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit enhanced compensation of Rs.83,080/- (Rupees Eighty Three Thousand and Eighty only) with 9% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit, before the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this MACA 2521/19 9 judgment. Learned Tribunal shall disburse that amount to the appellant, after deducting the liabilities, if any, towards tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund. The appeal is allowed to the extent as above, and no order is made as to costs. Sd/- **SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE** DSV/-