High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-03-17Appeal Allowed in Part; enhanced compensation w...

Sachidanandan v. C.P. Sameer & National Insurance Co. Ltd., MACA No. 2172 of 2009

Case / Petition Number:MACA No. 2172 of 2009

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2022-03-17
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed in part. The court re-fixes the notional monthly income at Rs. 4,500 (as per Ramachandrappa) and recalculates damages, resulting in total enhanced compensation of Rs. 80,000 (from Rs. 33,500). The insurer (R2) is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest at 6% per annum and costs before the Tribunal within 60 days of receiving a certified copy of the judgment; upon deposition, disbursement shall be in accordance with law. The 420-day delay is accounted for by deductions per CM Application No.1 of 2009 (order dated 08.11.2021).
Final Disposition: Appeal Allowed in Part; enhanced compensation with interest and costs; insurer directed to deposit the amount; disbursement on deposit.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sachidanandan

Respondents

C.P. Sameer
National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Nagaraj Narayanan
• Benoy C. Augustine
• Saijo Hassan
• A.S. Sabu

Counsels for Respondents

• S.K. Ajay Kumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal arises from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal verdict in O.P.(MV) No.567/2005, Ottapalam, awarding only a partial relief to Sachidanandan, the appellant-driver, who sustained a frontal sinus fracture in a December 31, 2004 accident involving a van insured by the National Insurance Co. The tribunal fixed the claimant’s notional monthly income at Rs. 2,500 and allowed Rs. 33,500 with Rs. 1,000 costs. The appellant argued that, following the Supreme Court’s Ramachandrappa decision (2011), the notional income for a driver in 2004 should be Rs. 4,500 per month, which would yield a higher compensation under heads such as loss of earnings, loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities. The High Court agreed to re-fix the notional income at Rs. 4,500, resulting in substantial recalculation: loss of earnings Rs. 18,000; loss of earning capacity Rs. 27,540; pain and suffering Rs. 15,000; loss of amenities Rs. 10,000; total enhanced to Rs. 80,000 (rounded from Rs. 79,840). The court allowed the appeal in part, directing the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount with interest (6% p.a.) and costs within 60 days, deducting interest for 420 days as previously ordered, and to disburse the amount upon deposit. The liability on the insurer to indemnify the first respondent was reaffirmed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income fixation for low-skilled workers (Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, [(2011) 13 SCC 236])
Enhancement of compensation on appellate review

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the tribunal erred in fixing a depressed notional income (Rs. 2,500) in 2004. Citing Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236, he argues that the notional income should be Rs. 4,500 per month, reflecting earnings of a driver in that period. With a frontal sinus fracture and 3% functional disability, the claimant asserts higher compensation under heads including loss of earnings, loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities. The tribunal’s other heads are argued to be reasonable; the insurer’s liability is not in dispute given Ext. A5 (police final report) establishing negligence by the first respondent.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents deny liability beyond the policy terms and emphasize that the accident occurred due to the claimant’s own negligence; the insurer’s liability hinges on indemnification unless policy conditions are violated (which were not proved). They challenge the quantum as fixed by the Tribunal and contend that no credible evidence supports a higher award; the burden lies on the appellant to establish a higher notional income and corresponding damages.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	[(2011) 13 SCC 236]	Positive	Court relies on the notional income framework from Ramachandrappa to fix the appellant’s monthly income at Rs. 4,500 in 2004, enabling enhanced compensation.

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 Sachidanandan v. C.P. Sameer & National Insurance Co. Ltd., MACA No. 2172 of 2009 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 17[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1943** **MACA NO. 2172 OF 2009** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 26.02.2008 IN O.P.(MV) NO.567/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM. APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **SACHIDANANDAN,** **S/O. KUTTINARAYANAN EZHUTHASSAN, KAROTTY HOUSE, NHANGATTIRI P.O., THRITHALA-VIA-PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.BENOJ C.AUGUSTIN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 C.P. SAMEER, S/O. MOIDUNNIKUTTY, CHERAN PARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUMANNUR, CHALISSERY.** - **2 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., PARCO TOWER, P.M. TAJ ROAD, CALICUT.** ## **R2 BY ADV S.K. AJAY KUMAR** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -2- **MACA NO. 2172 OF 2009** **C.S. DIAS, J.** **---------------------------------------------------MACA No.2172 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 17[th] day of March, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant was the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.567 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents before the Tribunal. 2. The appellant had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained to him in an accident on 31.12.2004. It was his case that, on the above said date, while he was driving an autorickshaw from Pattambi to a van Nhangattiri, bearing registration No.KL-9/Q-1266, driven and owned by the first respondent in a negligent manner, hit the autorickshaw. The appellant sustained multiple injuries, -3- ## **MACA NO. 2172 OF 2009** including a frontal sinus fracture. He was treated as an inpatient at the Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur, for a period of 8 days. The van was insured with the second respondent. The appellant was a driver by profession and was earning a monthly income of Rs.4,500/-. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.2,79,500/- from the respondents, which claim was limited to Rs.2,00,000/-. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 filed separate written statements. They denied the allegations in the claim petition. They contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the appellant. The second respondent also disputed the age, income and occupation of the appellant. 4. The appellant had examined himself and a doctor as PWs1 and 2 and proved Exts.A1 to A11 in evidence. The respondents did not let in any evidence. 5. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part, -4- ## **MACA NO. 2172 OF 2009** by permitting the appellant to recover from the second respondent an amount of Rs.33,500/- with interest and cost of Rs.1,000/-. 6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner is in appeal. 7. Heard; Sri. Nagaraj Narayanan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and Sri. S.K. Ajay Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent insurer. 8. The point that emanates for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just. ## **Negligence and liability** 9. Ext.A5 final report filed by the police proves that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent. Indisputably, the second respondent was the insurer of the van. The respondents have not let in any evidence to discredit Ext.A5 final report. The -5- ## **MACA NO. 2172 OF 2009** second respondent has also not proved that the first respondent had violated the insurance policy conditions. Therefore, the second respondent is to indemnify the liability of the first respondent arising out of the accident. ## **Income** 10. The appellant had claimed that he was a driver by profession and earning a monthly income at Rs.4,500/-. For want of material, the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs.2,500/-. 11. In **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited** **[(2011) 13 SCC 236]** , the Honourable Supreme Court has fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year 2004, at Rs.4,500/- per month. 12. Following the yardstick in the aforecited decision and considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2004, I re-fix the notional monthly -6- ## **MACA NO. 2172 OF 2009** income of the appellant at Rs.4,500/- as claimed in the claim petition. ## **Disability** 13. The appellant had produced Ext.A10 disability certificate which was proved through PW2. However, the Tribunal on a finding that the appellant had only a malunited fracture of the frontal bone with clinically palpable defect, fixed his functional disability at 3%. I confirm the said finding. 14. However, in view of the re-fixation of the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs.4,500/-, I award him an amount of Rs.27,540/- towards 'loss of earning capacity', instead of Rs.16,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. ## **Loss of earnings** 15. Even though the appellant had claimed an amount of Rs.50,000/- under the head 'loss of earning', the Tribunal did not consider the said head of account. -7- ## **MACA NO. 2172 OF 2009** On a consideration of Ext.A7 discharge summary and Ext.A10 disability certificate, which prove that the appellant had suffered a right frontal compound depressed fracture involving the frontal sinus and also had a malunited fracture of the frontal bone with clinically palpable defect, I am of the view that he was indisposed for a period of four months. 16. In view of the fixation of the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs.4,500/-, I award him an amount of Rs.18,000/- under the head 'loss of earning'. ## **Pain and suffering and loss of amenities** 17. The Tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.8,000/- under the head 'pain and suffering'. 18. Taking into account the fact that the appellant was treated as an inpatient for a period of eight days, that he was indisposed for a period of four months, and he has suffered a functional disability of 3%, I award him a further amount of Rs.7,000/- under the head 'pain -8- ## **MACA NO. 2172 OF 2009** and suffering' and Rs.10,000/- under the head 'loss of amenities'. 19. With respect to the other heads of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, I find the same to be reasonable and just. 20. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record and the law referred to in the aforecited decisions, I hold that the appellant/petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated above and given under the table below for easy reference. |**Sl.** **No.**|**Head of claim**|**Amount** **awarded** **by** **the Tribunal** **(Rs.)**|**Amount** **modified and** **recalculated** **by this Court** **(Rs.)**| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earnings|-|18,000/-| |2|Transportation expenses|2,000/-|2,000/-| |3|Bystander expenses|1,200/-|1,200/-| |4|Medical expenses|6,100/-|6,100/-| -9- ## **MACA NO. 2172 OF 2009** |5|Pain and sufferings|8,000/-|15,000/-| |---|---|---|---| |6|Loss of amenities|-|10,000/-| |7|Loss of earning capacity|16,200/-|27,540/-| ||**Total**|**33,500/-**|**79,840/-** **Rounded off to** **Rs.80,000/-**| In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, by enhancing the compensation by an amount of Rs.46,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of date of deposit, after deducting the interest for a period of 420 days, (i.e, the period of delay in filing the appeal and as ordered by this Court on 08.11.2021 in C.M. Application No.1 of 2009) and a cost of Rs.5,000/-. The second respondent insurer is ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest and cost before the Tribunal within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Immediately on the -10- ## **MACA NO. 2172 OF 2009** compensation amount being deposited, the same shall be disbursed to the appellant in accordance with law. Sd/- **C.S. DIAS JUDGE** bpr