High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2025-02-28Appeal partly allowed; Respondent No.3 directed...

SASI N.I. v. NIVIN, Fr. Stephen Mathew, and National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO.2234 OF 2014

Neutral Citation:2025:KER:22301

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. Pratheep Kumar
Judgment Date: 2025-02-28
Court Decision / Holding: This appeal is allowed in part. The insurer (Respondent No. 3) is directed to deposit Rs. 3,11,558 with 8% interest per annum from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, within two months from today, with proportionate costs. Upon deposit, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the petitioner, excluding court fee, as per rules. Final order: enhance compensation heads (loss of earnings, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, bystander’s expenses, and extra nourishment) and apply appropriate notional income and disability percentage as per the cited precedents; the liability on the insurer remains, with the insured’s negligence proven as per the Tribunal’s finding.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed; Respondent No.3 directed to deposit Rs.3,11,558/- with 8% interest from the date of the petition till deposit, within two months; upon deposit, the Tribunal to disburse the amount to the claimant as per rules.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SASI N.I.

Respondents

NIVIN
Fr. Stephen Mathew
National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SMT. BINITHA JAMES

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI. PMM. NAJEEB KHAN

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA No. 2234 of 2014) before the Kerala High Court, arising from an award in OP(MV) No. 257/2011 of the III Additional District & Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. The claimant, SASI N.I., sustained injuries in a Feb 14, 2011 accident when his scooter was struck by a car driven rashly. The Tribunal held the driver negligent, awarded Rs. 91,918 (rounded to Rs. 91,920), and directed the insurer to pay. The appellant challenged the quantum, arguing that the tribunal erred in fixing income at Rs. 4,000 per month though he claimed earnings as an electrical contractor (~Rs. 10,000). He relied on Ramachandrappa to press for a higher notional income (Rs. 8,000 in 2011) when actual income is not proved. The appellant also contends the disability certificate (Ext. A7 shows 15% disability) was unfairly reduced to 5% by the Tribunal without a valid reason, violating the principle in Manikantan G. v. Janardhanan Nair that, if not satisfied with a disability certificate, a medical board reference is warranted. The insurer admitted the accident but disputed negligence. The appeal culminates in recalculated compensation using the Pranay Sethi/Sarla Verma framework for loss of earnings, disability, and non‑pecuniary heads, enhancing several heads and increasing total compensation. The court holds that the appeal is allowed in part, directing deposit of Rs.3,11,558 with 8% interest and two months for deposit, with disbursement to the claimant.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income for unproved earnings – Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236
Multiplier and Loss of Earnings formula – Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680
Age-based multiplier framework – Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121
Disability certificate and medical board reference – Manikantan G. v. Janardhanan Nair (2021) 5 KHC 305

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in fixing monthly income at Rs. 4,000 despite evidence or claim of Rs. 10,000 as an electrical contractor. Relying on Ramachandrappa, notional income for 2011 should be Rs. 8,000 where actual earnings are unproven. Disability certificate (Ext. A7) shows 15% disability, but the Tribunal reduced it to 5% without valid justification; Manikantan G. mandates referral to a medical board if certificate is not accepted. Heads of compensation (pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, bystander expenses, extra nourishment) are under‑compensated given the nature and duration of injuries (C5–C7 disc issue, neck pain, mallet finger, 12 days inpatient). The appellant urges applying Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma principles with proper multiplier and future prospects, to reflect the true impact of the accident, including extended loss of earnings period and disability, with interest and costs. The aim is a just, commensurate award exceeding the Tribunal’s quantum.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents admit the accident and insurance policy but dispute negligence of the vehicle’s driver; insurer argues the Tribunal’s assessment of income (Rs. 4,000) is reasonable given evidence; the disability certificate was relied on by the Tribunal, and there is no medical board reference urged by the insurer. The respondents contend the damages computed by the Tribunal were largely appropriate and should not be enhanced beyond the head‑by‑head award; they oppose any reversal of the Tribunal’s findings on liability, and question the extent of enhanced compensation requested by the appellant.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.	2011 (13) SCC 236	Positive	Used to fix the notional income for a test‑case where actual earnings are unproved, setting Rs. 8,000 as notional income in 2011.
Manikantan G. v. Janardhanan Nair and Others	2021 (5) KHC 305	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that, if a disability certificate is not accepted, a medical board or higher authority must examine the claimant; Tribunal’s failure to do so is a ground to fault the award.
National Insurance Co. Ltd v Pranay Sethi	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Cited for the loss‑of‑earnings framework and the multiplier approach in calculation of compensation.
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	(2009) 6 SCC 121	Positive	Cited for the multiplier rule (11) used in computing compensation based on age and future prospects.

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 SASI N.I. v. NIVIN, Fr. Stephen Mathew, 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.

``` 2025:KER:22301 ``` ``` MACA NO.2234 OF 2014 ``` ``` 1 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` MACA NO. 2234 OF 2014 ``` ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 28.04.2014 IN OPMV NO.257 OF 2011 OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA / I ADDITIONAL MACT, THODUPUZHA ``` ## **`APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:`** ``` SASI N.I. AGED 57 YEARS S/O ITTAYATHI, NADUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR KOLLAPPUZHA TEMPLE, VELLAMTHANAM, UDUMBANNOOR VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADV SMT.BINITHA JAMES ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1NIVIN AGED 29 YEARS S/O JOHNY, KANNAMKULATH HOUSE, VAVALAKKATTU JUNCTION BHAGOM, VELLAMTHANAM, UDUMBANNOOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 595.[DELETED] 2FR. STEPHEN MATHEW CATHOLIC CHURCH, OMALLOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 647.[DELETED][RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 27.03.2015 IN IA 967/15.] ``` ``` MACA NO.2234 OF 2014 ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:22301 ``` ``` 3NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT -685 584. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:22301 ``` ``` MACA NO.2234 OF 2014 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.257/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, is the appellant herein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal) 2. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14.02.2011. According to the petitioner, on 14.02.2011 at about 10.00 a.m., while he was travelling in his scooter, a car bearing reg.no. KL-07-Z-3585 driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the scooter and as a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries. 3. The 1[st] respondent is the driver, the 2[nd] respondent is the owner and 3[rd] respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is limited to Rs.1,50,000/-. ``` MACA NO.2234 OF 2014 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:22301 ``` ``` 4 ``` 4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. 5. The evidence in the case consists of documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A11. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. 6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.91,918/- rounded to Rs.91920/- and directed the insurer to pay the same. 7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this appeal. 8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following: _Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?_ 9. Heard Smt. Binitha James, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.P.M.M. Najeeb Khan, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:22301 ``` ``` MACA NO.2234 OF 2014 ``` ``` 5 ``` 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the petitioner was working as electrical contractor, earning Rs.10000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.4000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. 11. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in _**Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.**_ [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2011 will come to Rs.8000/-. Since the petitioner could not prove his job or income as claimed in the OP, in the light of a dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Ramachandrappa (supra)** , his notional income is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.8000/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: 1. Multiple abrasions right shoulder, right side of face, right chin ``` 2025:KER:22301 ``` ``` MACA NO.2234 OF 2014 ``` ``` 6 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** and left knee. 2. C5, C6, C7 disc prolapse. 3. Fracture proximal phalanx right little finger. 4. Neck pain. 5. Mallet finger deformity right little finger. 13. Ext.A7 disability certificate shows that the petitioner suffered 15% permanent physical disability. It was issued by the medical board. The Tribunal, however, scaled down the percentage of disability of the petitioner to 5%, without assigning valid and cogent reasons. The law is settled that, if the Tribunal is not satisfied with the disability certificate produced by the petitioner, the remedy is to refer him to a medical board or higher Authority.(See **Manikantan G. v. Janardhanan Nair and Others** , 2021 (5)KHC 305). Having not done so, the Tribunal was not justified in scaling down the percentage of disability from what is shown in the disability certificate. I do find any grounds to disbelieve the said disability and as such the permanent physical disability of the petitioner is fixed as 15%. 14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 54 years. Therefore, 10% of the monthly income is to be added towards future ``` 2025:KER:22301 ``` ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` MACA NO.2234 OF 2014 ``` prospects, as held in the decision in **National Insurance Co.Ltd v Pranay Sethi** [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and the multiplier to be applied is 11, as held in **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation,** (2009) 6 SCC 121. In the above circumstances, the loss of disability will come to Rs.174240/-. 15. Towards loss of earnings, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.12000/- being the income for 3 months @Rs.4000/- . Considering the nature of the injuries sustained and the percentage of disability suffered by the petitioner, the petitioner might have lost income at least for a period of 5 months. Therefore, towards 'loss of income' the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.40000/- (8000x 5 months). 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.5000/- was awarded, towards 'bystander expenses' Rs.2400/-was awarded and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.2400/- was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side. 17. The petitioner sustained serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 12 days. Because of the injuries sustained, the ``` 2025:KER:22301 ``` ``` MACA NO.2234 OF 2014 ``` ``` 8 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** percentage of disability suffered and the length of treatment undergone by the petitioner, I hold that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the heads ‘pain and sufferings’, 'loss of amenities of life', 'bystander expense' and 'extra nourishment' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.40000/-, Rs.25000/-, Rs.3600/- and Rs.5000/- respectively. 18. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 19. Therefore, the petitioner/appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.3,11,558/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: |**Sl.** **No.**|**Head of claim**|**Amount awarded by** **the Tribunal (Rs)**|**Amount** **modified in** **appeal (Rs.)**| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earnings|12000|40000| |2|Pain and suffering|20000|40000| |3|Loss of amenities|5000|25000| |4|Bystander’s expenses|2400|3600| |5|Extra nourishment|2400|5000| |6|Transportation charges|1000|1000| **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [102 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** 2025:KER:22301 **----- End of picture text -----** |`MACA NO.2234 OF 2014` **`9`** 7 Damage to clothing 500 500 8 Medical expenses 22218 22218 9 Disability compensation 26400 174240 **Total** **Rs.91,918/- rounded** **to Rs.91920** **311558** Amount enhanced **2,19,638/**-|`MACA NO.2234 OF 2014` **`9`** 7 Damage to clothing 500 500 8 Medical expenses 22218 22218 9 Disability compensation 26400 174240 **Total** **Rs.91,918/- rounded** **to Rs.91920** **311558** Amount enhanced **2,19,638/**-|`MACA NO.2234 OF 2014` **`9`** 7 Damage to clothing 500 500 8 Medical expenses 22218 22218 9 Disability compensation 26400 174240 **Total** **Rs.91,918/- rounded** **to Rs.91920** **311558** Amount enhanced **2,19,638/**-|`MACA NO.2234 OF 2014` **`9`** 7 Damage to clothing 500 500 8 Medical expenses 22218 22218 9 Disability compensation 26400 174240 **Total** **Rs.91,918/- rounded** **to Rs.91920** **311558** Amount enhanced **2,19,638/**-|`MACA NO.2234 OF 2014` **`9`** 7 Damage to clothing 500 500 8 Medical expenses 22218 22218 9 Disability compensation 26400 174240 **Total** **Rs.91,918/- rounded** **to Rs.91920** **311558** Amount enhanced **2,19,638/**-| |---|---|---|---|---| |||||| ||7|Damage to clothing|500|500| ||8|Medical expenses|22218|22218| ||9|Disability compensation|26400|174240| |||**Total**|**Rs.91,918/- rounded** **to Rs.91920**|**311558**| |||Amount enhanced|**2,19,638/**-|| 20. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.3,11,558/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eleven Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Eight Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. 21. On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the petitioner, excluding court fee payable, if any, without delay, as per rules. **Sd/-** **C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE** Pvv