High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-03-25Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation w...

RadhaKrishnan B. v. Keshavankutty Nair and The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.90 OF 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. DIAS
Judgment Date: 2021-03-25
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed in part. The court revised the notional income to Rs 4,000 per month, increased loss of earnings to Rs 16,000, and enhanced pain and suffering to Rs 40,000. Other heads remained reasonable. The overall amount became Rs 1,48,672, with an additional enhancement of Rs 28,000. Interest at 7.5% per annum applies on the enhanced amount from the petition date, and proportionate costs are awarded. The 2nd respondent must deposit the enhanced compensation before the Tribunal within two months from the receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after which the Tribunal will disburse to the appellant in accordance with law.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation with directions for deposit and disbursement through the Tribunal within two months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

RadhaKrishnan B.

Respondents

Keshavankutty Nair
The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Beepin Vijayan

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. P.C. Chacko (Parathanam)

Case Synopsis & Summary

RadhaKrishnan B. (the appellant) challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s (Alappuzha) award in OP(MV) 1861/2006, arising from a 14 December 2003 road collision involving a KSRTC bus and his Maruti car. The tribunal awarded Rs 1,20,672 with interest at 7.5% per annum and costs, after partially allowing the claim petition. The appellant sought higher compensation, arguing that the notional income and several heads of damages were understated. Notably, the tribunal had fixed a notional income of Rs 2,000 per month; subsequent Supreme Court precedents in Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq guided reassessment. The High Court, examining the evidence (injuries including a femur fracture and facial injuries) and the period of incapacity, held that the notional income should be Rs 4,000 per month, acknowledging the decisions on notional earnings. It recalculated loss of earnings to Rs 16,000 (for four months), and increased pain and suffering to Rs 40,000. Other heads (treatment, bystander expenses, clothing, transport, nourishment, amenities) were deemed reasonable. The court’s overall recalculation totals Rs 1,48,672, and the appeal is allowed in part, with an additional Rs 28,000 as enhanced compensation, at 7.5% interest on the enhanced amount from the petition date, payable within two months. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the enhanced amount accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Just compensation principle under the Motor Vehicles Act
Fairness, reasonableness and equitability as guiding standards for compensation
Notional income approach in determining loss of earnings (Ramachandrappa, Syed Sadiq)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the tribunal’s quantum is not fair or reasonable in light of the notional income and damages. Relying on Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq, the appellant argues a higher notional income (Rs 4,000 per month) and greater compensation for loss of earnings and pain and suffering, supported by medical records showing serious injuries and four months of incapacity. He submits Exts A1–A33 in evidence and seeks re-calibration of various heads of damages and costs.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent-2 KSRTC, while not contesting negligence by the car’s driver, argued that the petition claims were excessive and exorbitant; respondent contended that the award should be dismissed or significantly reduced, maintaining liability while opposing inflated heads of compensation.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Used to articulate the 'just compensation' standard emphasizing fairness, reasonableness, and equitability in determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.	(2011) (13) SCC 236	Positive	Cited for notional income benchmarks (notably for laborers) guiding the reassessment of income in Mazor cases.
Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd.	(2014) (2) SCC 735	Positive	Cited for principles guiding notional income and compensation assessments 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 RadhaKrishnan B. v. Keshavankutty Nair and The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation 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 C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **MACA.No.90 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 1861/2006 DATED 27-12-2010 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **RADHAKRISHNAN B., S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR,18/307 A,'KARTHIKA',BINNI ROAD,PALLURUTHY.P.O,KOCHI-682006.** **BY ADV. SRI.BEPIN VIJAYAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 KESHAVANKUTTY NAIR, S/O.PADMANABHA PILLAI,CHURATTU KOTAYIL,THAZHATHUKUR,MALAYAM.P.O,WARD NO.10,VELAVURKAL(P),NEYYATTINKARA(T),TRIVANDRUM(DIST) ,PIN-695131.** - **2 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,FORT,TRIVANDRUM,PIN-695001.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-03-2021, THE COURT ON 25-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.No.90 OF 2014 2** ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant was the petitioner in OP(MV) No.1861 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha. The respondents in the claim petition are the respondents in the appeal. 2. The relevant facts in the claim petition, for the determination of the appeal, are: on 14.12.2003 while the appellant was travelling in a Maruthi Car, when the vehicle reached the South of SN College, Cherthala, on the Alappuzha - Ernakulam NH road a KSRTC Super Fast bus bearing Reg.No.KL-15/4192 (offending vehicle) driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the Maruthi Car. The appellant sustained serious injuries and was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha; where he underwent treatment as an inpatient for 7 days from 15.12.2003 to 21.01.2004 The appellant spent considered amount of money for his treatment. The appellant was employed as a Technical **MACA.No.90 OF 2014 3** Executive in Kancor Flowers Spices Company and drawing a monthly income of Rs.4,000/-. The offending vehicle belonged to the 2[nd] respondent. Hence, the respondents 1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner which he quantified at Rs.2,05,000/-. 3. The 1[st] respondent did not contest the proceedings and was set at ex parte. 4. The 2[nd] respondent filed a written statement denying the allegations of negligence on the part of the 1[st] respondent, but contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car. The amount claimed under various heads was excessive and exorbitant. Hence, the claim petition be dismissed. 5. The claim petition was consolidated and jointly tried along with OP(MV) Nos.1470/05, 1669/04 and 1536/2005. The petitioners in the above claim petitions marked Exts.A1 to A33 in evidence. The 2[nd] respondent **MACA.No.90 OF 2014 4** did not adduce any evidence. 6. The Tribunal, after analyising the pleadings and materials on record by its common award dated 27.12.2010 allowed the claim petition in part by awarding the appellant an amount of Rs1,20,672/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs. 7. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation the petitioner is in appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent/Kerala State Road transport Corporation. 9. The question that emerges for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation is awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just. 10. A constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680)**_ , has held that Section 168 of ## **MACA.No.90 OF 2014 5** the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, deals with the concept of 'just compensation' and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standards. The conception of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and nonviolation of the principle of equitability. 11. The respondents do not dispute the fact that the accident was caused due to the negligence on the part of the 1[st] respondent. The Police after investigation had chargesheeted the 1[st] respondent for negligence. Undisputedly, the 1[st] respondent was the driver of the 2[nd] respondent. Therefore, the liability of the 2[nd] respondent stands proved and is conclusive. 12. The appellant had claimed that he was employed as a Technical Executive in Kancor Flowers Spices Company and drawing a monthly income of Rs.4,000/- per month. The Tribunal fixed the notional income of the appellant at Rs.2,000/- per month. ## **MACA.No.90 OF 2014 6** ## **Notional Income** 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., (2011 (13) SCC 236)** and in_ _**Syed Sadiq and Others vs.Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2014 (2) SCC**_ _**735)**_ has categorically declared the notional income of a Coolie Worker in the year 2004 at Rs.4,500/- and that of a Vegetable Vendor in the year 2006 at Rs.6.500/-. 14. Following the parameters laid down in the aforecited decisions and taking into consideration the fact that the accident occurred on 14.12.2003, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant's notional income can be safely to be fixed at Rs.4,000/-, i.e after deducting the tax liability of the appellant. Hence, I re-fix the notional income of the appellant at Rs.4,000/- per month. ## **Loss of earnings** 15. In view of the re-fixation of the notional income of the appellant at Rs.4,000/- and taking note of the fact ## **MACA.No.90 OF 2014 7** that he was incapacitated for a period of 4 months, I fix his loss of earnings @ Rs.16,000/- instead of Rs.8,000/fixed by the Tribunal. ## **Compensation for pain and sufferings** 16. It is substantiated by the wound certificate and discharge summary issued by the Medical Trust Hospital that the appellant had suffered a fracture of his right femur, multiple abrasions over face, multiple abrasions over right eye and both eye lids, lacerated injury over right elbow. Taking note of the aforesaid injuries, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant is entitled compensation under the head pain and sufferings @ Rs.40,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/- fixed by the Tribunal, that is an escalation by a further amount of Rs.20,000/-. ## **Other heads of claim** : 17. With respect to the other heads of claim namely; treatment expenses, bystander expenses, damages to clothing, transportation charges, extra nourishment and loss of amenities in life, I find that the Tribunal had ## **MACA.No.90 OF 2014 8** awarded reasonable and just compensation. 18. On an over all re-appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record, I am of the firm opinion that the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below for easy reference. |Head of claim|Amount Awarded by the Tribunal (in Rs.)|Amounts modified and recalculated by this Court| |---|---|---| |||| |Loss of earnings|8000/-|16,000/-| |Treatment expenses|79,672/-|79,672/-| |Bystander expenses|700/-|700/-| |Damages to clothing|300/-|300/-| |Transportation expenses|1,000/-|1,000/-| |Extra- nourishment|1,000/-|1,000/-| |Compensation for pain and sufferings|20,000/-|40,000/-| |Loss of amenities in life|10,000/-|10,000/-| |Total|1,20,672/-|1,48,672/-| **MACA.No.90 OF 2014 9** In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.28,000/- with interest at the rate of Rs.7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs. The 2nd respondent shall deposit the additional compensation awarded in this appeal before the Tribunal with interest and proportionate costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The Tribunal shall disburse the additional compensation to the appellant/petitioner in accordance with law. sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** pm