High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-12-01Appeal allowed; Tribunal’s quantum enhanced per...

Praveen Kumar v. The National Insurance Company Limited

Case / Petition Number:MACA No.353/2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Kauser Edappagath
Judgment Date: 2021-12-01
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed. The High Court reassesses and enhances compensation under several heads, applying notional income of Rs 10,000 per month and 40% future prospects for permanent disability, resulting in a revised total of Rs 13,35,200/-. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest and costs within three months from receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Tribunal’s award is thus superseded to the extent of the reassessed heads, and the appeal succeeds as per the above modifications.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; Tribunal’s quantum enhanced per reassessment; insurer directed to deposit enhanced amount within three months along with interest and costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Praveen Kumar

Respondents

The National Insurance Company Limited

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• A.N. Santhosh

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Lal George

Case Synopsis & Summary

Praveen Kumar v. The National Insurance Company Limited, MACA No.353/2019, is a Kerala High Court appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 14 May 2015 on Aluva Palace Road. The claimant, employed as a supervisor with Kaitharan Glass and Plywoods, asserted that his monthly earnings were about Rs 30,000, but the Tribunal adopted a notional income of Rs 9,000 per month due to lack of substantiated proof. The Tribunal awarded Rs 13,31,525 in total under various heads, including loss of earnings, medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and permanent disability, while reducing several claims. The claimant challenged the quantum, arguing higher earnings and higher costs were justified given hospitalization for 53 days and serious injuries. The High Court, after hearing the appeal on 27 November 2021 and delivering judgment on 1 December 2021, reassessed the compensation by applying established principles on notional income, future prospects, and multiplier, citing Ramachandrappa, Rajesh, Pranay Sethi, Sandeep Khanuja, Karthik Subramanian, and Suja George. The court found Ext.A10 inadequate to prove higher earnings and fixed Rs 10,000 as notional income, and it enhanced several heads: transport, nourishment, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and permanent disability, ultimately directing an additional Rs 4,41,500. The appeal is allowed with these modifications, and deposit with interest and costs is directed within three months.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income plus future prospects (Ramachandrappa)
Future prospects for permanent disability (40% addition as per Pranay Sethi and Rajesh line)
Multiplier method for computing compensation (12 months, 16-year multiplier)
Application of 40% notional income addition for future prospects in self-employed/ fixed-wage scenarios (as analyzed in Rajesh, Pranay Sethi, and Sandeep Khanuja)
Notional income method with adjustments per cited cases (Ramachandrappa)
Use of 30%/40% future prospects concepts in permanent disability considerations (Rajesh, Karthik Subramanian)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal’s quantum under each head is far too low. The notional income ought to be Rs. 10,000 per month (as opposed to the Tribunal’s Rs. 9,000), based on Ramachandrappa, especially since Ext.A10 (employment certificate) shows a salary of Rs. 15,000, though not proved conclusively. The claimant’s hospitalization spanned 53 days and warrants higher hospital/medical expenses, transport, and nourishment. Pain and suffering and loss of amenities should be substantially increased given the injuries. The claimant pressed for permanent disability compensation adding 40% as future prospects, relying on Karthik Subramanian and Suja George, and argued that the Tribunal’s 40% future-prospects computation should be integrated under the multiplier framework. The appellant urged a larger cumulative figure, contending the Tribunal undervalued the loss of earning power and other heads, and sought reassessment to total around or above Rs. 13.35 lakh.

Contentions of Respondents

The counsel for the insurer contended that Ext.A10 evidence was not sufficiently proved to justify a higher notional income. The Tribunal’s awards for transport, nourishment, and medical expenses were within reasonable bounds and did not warrant substantial enhancement. The insurer also urged cautious application of the future-prospects doctrine, noting that the established income should be used for calculating permanent disability while ensuring that any enhancement remains proportionate to the proven income level. The respondents submitted that the Tribunal’s assessment adequately reflected the injury severity, hospitalization duration, and dependency status, and cautioned against speculative increases beyond what the evidence supports. They urged the Court to confirm the Tribunal’s original framework and adjust deficits only if the claimant could robustly substantiate higher earnings.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.	[(2011) 3 SCC 236]	Positive	Court relied on Ramachandrappa to fix the notional income at Rs 10,000 per month.
Karthik Subramanian v. P.Sarath Babu and Another	(2021) ACJ 993	Positive	Court relied on Karthik Subramanian to support 40% future prospects for disability.
Manager, Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Suja George and Others	MACA No.1860/2015 (Decided 27 Feb 2017)	Positive	Division Bench decision relied upon for 30% future prospects/adjustment framework.
Rajesh and Others v. Rajbir Singh and Others	(2013) 9 SCC 54	Positive	Affirms 30% addition to notional income for future prospects in certain cases.
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi	AIR 2007 SC 5157	Positive	Constitution Bench principle of 40% addition towards future prospects in appropriate cases.
Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande	(2017) ACJ 979	Positive	Cited as supportive precedent for future-prospects/factor considerations.

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 Praveen Kumar v. The National Insurance 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 DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021/10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 MACA NO. 353 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1136/2015 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PERUMBAVOOR** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** PRAVEEN KUMAR AGED 39 YEARS S/O. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, KALAMBLAYIL HOUSE, KUNJATTUKARA, EDATHALA P.O BY ADV A.N.SANTHOSH ## **RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:** THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED MYDHILY MANDIRAM, JANATHA JUNCTION, PALARIVATTOM 682 025 BY ADV SRI.LAL GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.11.2021, THE COURT ON 1.12.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA No.353/2019 ## -:2:- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 1[st] day of December, 2021 The claimant at the Tribunal is the appellant. He challenges the quantum of compensation awarded to him vide the impugned award. 2. The claimant met with an accident on 14/5/2015 at about 7.45 p.m. He was riding the motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KL-41/G 4346 through the Aluva Palace Road. At that time, the car bearing Regn.No.KL-7/ CA 319 owned by the first respondent and driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motor cycle driven by the claimant and he sustained injuries. The third respondent is the insurer of the car. The claimant sustained serious injuries in the incident as described in Ext.A7 series discharge certificates and Ext.A11 wound certificate. He was hospitalised for a total period of 53 days. He claimed a total compensation of `20,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded `13,31,525/-. Dissatisfied with the said award, the claimant preferred this appeal. MACA No.353/2019 ## -:3:- 3. I have heard Sri.A.N.Santhosh, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Lal George, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company. 4. According to the claimant, at the time of the accident, he was working as supervisor in Kaitharan Glass and Plywoods, Aluva and was drawing a monthly salary of `30,000/-. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent. The said finding is not under challenge. Admittedly the car was insured with the third respondent and the policy was in force at the time of the accident. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of `13,31,525/- under the following different heads. |Sl. No.|Head of Claim|Amount claimed|Amount awarded| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earnings|`20,00,000/-|`90,000/-| |2|Partial loss of earning|`10,00,000/-|Nil| |3|Transport to hospital|`2,00,000/-|`5,000/-| |4|Extra nourishment|`5,00,000/-|`2,500/-| |5|Payment to bystander|`10,00,000/-|`13,250/-| |6|Damage to clothes|`1,00,000/-|`1,000/-| |7|Medical expenses|`10,00,000/-|`4,23,575/-| |8|Pain and suffering|`10,00,000/-|`60,000/-| |9|Loss of amenities etc.|`15,00,000/-|`45,000/-| |10|Disfiguration|`5,00,000/-|Nil| |11|Permanent disability|`15,00,000/-|`6,91,200/-| MACA No.353/2019 ## -:4:- |12|Loss-expectation of life|`10,00,000/-|Nil| |---|---|---|---| |13|Loss of earning power|`10,00,000/-|Nil| ||Total|`1,23,00,000/- limited to `20,00,000/-|`13,31,525/-| 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under each head is very low. I shall deal with the amount awarded by the Tribunal under each head. Under the head “Loss of Earnings”, the Tribunal awarded `90,000/-. The said amount was arrived at taking the notional income as `9,000/- per month. Even though the claimant alleged that he was working as Supervisor in Kaitharan Glass and Plywoods and earning `30,000/- per month, it was not substantiated. True, an employment certificate was produced and marked as Ext.A10. It says that his monthly salary is `15,000/per month. Ext.A10 was not proved in accordance with law. Thus, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at `9,000/- per month. Applying the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in _**Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance**_ _**Insurance Company Ltd.**_ [(2011) 3 SCC 236], the notional income has to be fixed at `10,000/- per month. Hence, under this head, the claimant is entitled to `1,00,000/-. Under the head MACA No.353/2019 -:5:- “Transportation to Hospital” only `5,000/- was granted though the claim was `2,00,000/-. There was hospitalisation for a period of 53 days. The claimant was hospitalised on three different occasions. Considering this aspect, I am of the view that the claimant is entitled to `15,000/- under this head. So also, the “Extra Nourishment” granted appears to be very low. The Tribunal awarded only `2,500/-. I am of the view that it has to be enhanced to `5,000/-. The compensation awarded under the head “Payment to Bystander”, “Damage to Clothes” and “Medical Expenses” do not call for any interference. Under the head “Pain and Suffering”, the Tribunal awarded only `60,000/- as against the claim of `10,00,000/-. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and the days of hospitalisation, I am of the view that it can be enhanced to `80,000/-. Similarly, the “Loss of Amenities and Inconvenience” can be enhanced to `60,000/- from `45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the claimant, next, vehemently argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head “Permanent Disability” is very low. The permanent disability was assessed at 40%. According to the MACA No.353/2019 -:6:- learned counsel, the claimant is entitled to an additional 40% of notional income towards future prospects for the purpose of computing compensation for permanent disability. In support of his argument, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in _**Karthik Subramanian v. P.Sarath Babu and Another**_ (2021 ACJ 993) and of the Division Bench of this Court in _**Manager, Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Suja George and Others**_ (MACA No.1860/2015 decided on 27[th] February, 2017). In _**Karthik Subramanian**_ (supra), the injured therein sustained 40% disability in the accident. The Apex Court taking note of its earlier judgment in _**Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande**_ (2017 ACJ 979) awarded the compensation for future prospects and advancement in life and career as well applying the multiplier method. In the _**Manager, Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd.**_ (supra), it was contended by the insurer that in a case where notional income was adopted, the Tribunal was not justified in adding 30% towards future prospects for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head of permanent disability. In that case, the permanent disability assessed was only 8%. Still, the MACA No.353/2019 -:7:- Division Bench awarded 30% of the notional income towards future prospects. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in _**Rajesh and Others v. Rajbir Singh and Others**_ [(2013) 9 SCC 54], it was held that there was no illegality in adopting and taking the required percentage of notional income towards future prospects for the purpose of computing compensation for permanent disability. In _**Rajesh**_ (supra), it was held that in case of self employed persons or persons engaged on fixed wages, 30% of increase in the notional income need to be given. In _**National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi**_ (AIR 2007 SC 5157), the Constitution Bench held that in a case where the deceased was below the age of 40 years and self employed, while determining the income, an addition of 40% of the established income should be awarded. Applying the dictum laid down in the above cases, I am of the view that 40% has to be added to the notional income of `10,000/- fixed towards future prospects. Thus, under the head “Permanent Disability”, the claimant is entitled to a total sum of `10,75,200/(14000x12x16x40%). Hence, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under each head has to be reassessed as follows: MACA No.353/2019 -:8:- |Sl. No.|Head of Claim|Amount claimed|Amount awarded by the Tribubal|Amount reassessed|Difference| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earnings|`20,00,000/-|`90,000/-|`1,00,000/-|`10,000/-| |2|Partial loss of earning|`10,00,000/-|Nil|--|| |3|Transport to hospital|`2,00,000/-|`5,000/-|`15,000/-|`10,000/-| |4|Extra nourishment|`5,00,000/-|`2,500/-|`5,000/-|`2,500/-| |5|Payment to bystander|`10,00,000/-|`13,250/-|Not interfered|--| |6|Damage to clothes|`1,00,000/-|`1,000/-|"|--| |7|Medical expenses|`10,00,000/-|`4,23,575/-|"|--| |8|Pain and suffering|`10,00,000/-|`60,000/-|`80,000/-|`20,000/-| |9|Loss of amenities etc.|`15,00,000/-|`45,000/-|`60,000/-|`15,000/-| |10|Disfiguration|`5,00,000/-|Nil|--|--| |11|Permanent disability|`15,00,000/-|`6,91,200/-|`10,75,200/-|`3,84,000/-| |12|Loss-expectation of life|`10,00,000/-|Nil|--|--| |13|Loss of earning power|`10,00,000/-|Nil|--|--| ||Total|`1,23,00,000/- limited to `20,00,000/-|`13,31,525/-|`13,35,200/-|`4,41,500/-| Thus, the appellant is entitled to an additional compensation of `4,41,500/- (Rupees Four lakhs forty one thousand and five hundred only). The respondent is directed to deposit the said amount along with interest and proportionate MACA No.353/2019 -:9:- costs as ordered by the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appeal is allowed as above. Sd/- **DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE** **Rp**