High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-04-01The appeal is allowed to the extent of enhanced...

Sanjay Bhagavan Mali @ Sanjayt Settu v. Ramachandran C. Naik, Ramakrishna N. Naik, and National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA. No. 1006 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Sophy Thomas, J.
Judgment Date: 2024-04-01
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed to the extent of enhanced compensation as calculated by the court, directing the 3rd respondent insurer to deposit Rs. 40,540 with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition, within two months, after deducting any liabilities and statutory obligations. No order as to costs.
Final Disposition: The appeal is allowed to the extent of enhanced compensation; insurer to deposit enhanced amount with interest within two months; no costs order.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sanjay Bhagavan Mali @ Sanjayt Settu

Respondents

Ramachandran C. Naik
Ramakrishna N. Naik
National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Sheji P. Abraham
• Sri. O.K. Muraleedharan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. PMM NajeeB Khan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, in MACA No. 1006 of 2013, heard an appeal by Sanjay Bhagavan Mali challenging an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trichur, under OP(MV) No. 2488 of 2005, for inadequacy of compensation following a road accident on 04 May 2005. The appellant, a 35-year-old daily wage worker (gold worker), was travelling in a lorry when it collided with another vehicle driven rashly by the first respondent. He sustained serious injuries, required nine days of hospitalization, and suffered a disability. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 97,100, far below the amount claimed (Rs. 3,00,000). The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the notional income at Rs. 3,000 per month, arguing under the principle laid down in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 2011 SC 2951) that a casual worker could have a notional income of Rs. 5,000 in 2005. The Kerala High Court accepted this approach, recalculating notional income at Rs. 5,000 and computing enhanced compensation across several heads. Loss of earnings was raised to Rs. 20,000 (from Rs. 9,000) with Rs. 9,000 already paid deducted, yielding Rs. 11,000 as enhanced earnings. Additional sums were awarded for extra nourishment (Rs. 1,000), clothing (Rs. 500), pain and suffering (Rs. 3,000 more to Rs. 23,000), loss of amenities (Rs. 2,000 more to Rs. 20,000), and permanent disability (Rs. 23,040 more to Rs. 57,600). The total enhanced compensation became Rs. 40,540. The insurer (3rd respondent) was directed to deposit this amount with interest at 8% from the date of petition, within two months, after adjusting liabilities and statutory obligations. The appeal is allowed to this extent, with no order on costs.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contended that his notional income should be Rs.5,000 per month (not Rs.3,000) in 2005, citing Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 2011 SC 2951). He argued that a 35-year-old gold worker cannot be pegged at Rs.3,000 as notional income, given the injury severity, hospitalization for nine days, and resulting disability. Relying on the Supreme Court’s principle regarding notional income, the appellant urged recalculation of loss of earnings and consequential heads (pain and suffering, loss of amenities, nourishment, and permanent disability) to reflect higher income and actual loss, resulting in just compensation beyond the Tribunal’s award.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents (3rd respondent insurer) defended the policy and contested the enhancement in the appeal, while the 1st and 2nd respondents remained ex parte. The insurer admitted the policy but did not advance a detailed alternative computation in the document. The primary argument, as reflected, was to justify the Tribunal’s award and policy terms, with no substantial grounds shown to negate the insurer’s liability or to oppose the admitted policy; the record emphasizes that the insurer contested the case but admitted the policy.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited	AIR 2011 SC 2951	Positive	The court relied on the Ramachandrappa principle to fix a higher notional income (Rs. 5,000) for 2005, thereby enabling enhanced compensation for loss of earnings and related heads.

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 Sanjay Bhagavan Mali @ Sanjayt Settu v. Ramachandran C. Naik, Ramakrishna N. Naik, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. 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`_ ``` MONDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ## _`MACA NO. 1006 OF 2013`_ ``` AGAINST THE THE AWARD DATED 23.11.2012 IN OPMV NO.2488 OF 2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. TRICHUR ``` ## _`APPELLANT/PETITIONER:`_ ``` SANJAY BHAGAVAN MALI @ SANJAYT SETTU S/O.BHAGAVAN, MALI HOUSE, OPP. WADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION, KEERTHI COMPLEX - 680 582. BY ADVS. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM SRI.O.K.MURALEEDHARAN ``` ## _`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`_ ``` 1RAMACHANDRAN.C. NAIK C/O. RAMAKRISHNAN N. NAIK, S/O.NAGAPPA, BAVIKARE, ANKOLA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA. 2RAMAKRISHNA N. NAIK S/O. NAGAPPA, -DO- 3NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. SHRIRAM SITE OFFICE, 24, PRAKASAM ROAD, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI BY ADV SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA. No. 1006 of 2013 ``` ``` ..2.. ``` ## **SOPHY THOMAS, J.** ## **=====================** ## M.A.C.A. No. 1006 of 2013 ## **========================** ## _**J U D G M E N T**_ ## **Dated this the 01[st] day of April, 2024** This appeal is filed by the petitioner in OP(MV) No. 2488 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Trichur, challenging the award on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. 2. The appellant met with a road traffic accident on 04.05.2005 at 06.00 p.m., while he was travelling to Mangalore in a lorry. At Gollapur KA-30 -6404 lorry driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the lorry in which the appellant was travelling. He sustained serious injuries thereby, and he was hospitalized for nine days. He suffered disability also due to the injuries suffered in that ``` MACA. No. 1006 of 2013 ``` **==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** accident. He approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. But the Tribunal awarded only Rs.97,100/-. Hence this appeal. 3. The 1[st] respondent was the driver of the offending lorry. The 2[nd] respondent was its owner, and the 3[rd] respondent was its insurer. Respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte. The 3[rd] respondent insurer contested the case, but admitted the policy. 4. In the appeal, notice to respondents 1 and 2 was dispensed with since the 3[rd] respondent insurer entered appearance, and admitted the policy. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, and learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent insurer. 6. Now this Court is called upon to find out whether there is any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the ``` MACA. No. 1006 of 2013 ``` **==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** appellant was a 35 year old gold worker earning monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. But, learned Tribunal fixed his notional income @ Rs.3,000/-. Relying on the decision _**Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951]**_ , learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, even a coolie worker was eligible to get his notional income fixed @ Rs.5,000/- in the year 2005. Relying on that decision, this Court is inclined to fix his notional income @ Rs.5,000/-. 8. Learned Tribunal assessed loss of income for three months @ Rs.3,000/- per month. The appellant had suffered closed posterior dislocation of left hip with fracture anterior column acctabulam with small fracture below head of femur. He was hospitalized for nine days. Considering the nature of injury, and the hospitalization for nine days, this Court is inclined to assess loss of earning for a period of four months @ Rs.5,000/- per ``` MACA. No. 1006 of 2013 ``` **==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** month. So, he is entitled to get Rs.20,000/-. After deducting Rs.9,000/- already paid, the appellant is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.11,000/- as enhanced compensation towards loss of earning. 9. Learned Tribunal awarded no amount towards extra nourishment though the appellant claimed Rs.30,000/-. Considering hospitalization for nine days, this Court is inclined to award Rs.1,000/- towards extra nourishment. 10. Towards damages to clothing also, no amount was awarded by the Tribunal. This Court is awarding Rs.500/towards damage to clothing. 11. Towards pain and suffering, against his claim of Rs.40,000/- learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.20,000/-. Considering the dislocation of left hip with fracture anterior column acctabulam with small fracture below head of femur, with hospitalization for nine days, this Court is inclined to award ``` MACA. No. 1006 of 2013 ``` **==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** Rs.3,000/ more towards pain and suffering. 12. Towards loss of amenities, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.18,000/-. Learned Tribunal accepted disability of 6% for the appellant, due to the injuries suffered in the accident. Ext.A7 disability certificate shows that, the appellant had painful limping of left side, pain on sitting, even on european cummode, loss of rotation of left hip, disability to squat, difficulty in climbing steps, etc, etc. So this court is inclined to award Rs.2,000/- more towards loss of amenities. 13. Towards compensation for permanent disability of 6%, the appellant is entitled to get Rs.57,600/-, taking his monthly income @ Rs.5,000/- and multiplier as 16 (5,000 x 12 x 16 x 6%). After deducting Rs.34,560/- awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.23,040/under the head compensation for permanent disability. 14. Compensation awarded under all other heads seems to be ``` MACA. No. 1006 of 2013 ``` ``` ..7.. ``` ## reasonable, and hence needs no modification. ## 15. The enhanced compensation awarded in this appeal is ## given in the table below:- |_`SL. No`_|_`Head of`_ _`claim`_|_`Amount`_ _`awarded`_ _`by the`_ _`Tribunal`_|_`Amount awarded in`_ _`appeal`_|_`Difference to be`_ _`drawn as`_ _`enhanced`_ _`compensation`_| |---|---|---|---|---| |_`1`_|_`Loss of`_ _`earning`_|_`9,000/-`_|_`20,000/-`_|_`11,000/-`_| |_`2`_|_`Extra`_ _`nourishment`_|_`…….`_|_`1,000/-`_|_`1,000/-`_| |_`3`_|_`Damages to`_ _`clothing`_|_`….`_|_`5,00/-`_|_`5,00/-`_| |_`4`_|_`Pain and`_ _`suffering`_|_`20,000/-`_|_`23,000`_|_`3,000/-`_| |_`5`_|_`Loss of`_ _`amenities`_|_`18,000/-`_|_`20,000/-`_|_`2,000/-`_| |_`6`_|_`Permanent`_ _`disability`_|_`35,560/-`_|_`57,600/-`_|_`23,040/-`_| |_`Total`_||||_`40,540/-`_| 16. So the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.40,540/- in total (11,000 + 1,000 + 5,00 + 3,000 + 2,000 + 23,040). 17. The 3[rd] respondent Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.40,540/- in the bank account of the appellant with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition ``` MACA. No. 1006 of 2013 ``` **==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** till the date of deposit (except 92 days of delay in filing the appeal) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The deposit must be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06/09/2019 and clarified in O.M.No.D1/62475/2016 dated 07/11/2019 after deducting the liabilities, if any, of the appellant 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** RMV