High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2025-03-14Appeal allowed in part; final enhanced compensa...

Siddique v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA No.2509 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. Pratheep Kumar
Judgment Date: 2025-03-14
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed in part; the insurer (Respondent No. 3) is directed to deposit Rs.11,48,151 (less any amount already deposited), with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till deposit, within two months; upon deposit, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the petitioner in accordance with rules.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; final enhanced compensation and deposit order issued.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Siddique

Respondents

K.S. Ramanarayanan
C.J. Varghese
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Smt. Divya B. Nair
• Smt. A. Mumthaz
• Sri. R. Retheesh Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. John Joseph Vettikad

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, in MACA No. 2509 of 2014, heard an appeal against an MACT Kozhikode award for injuries sustained in a 30.01.2002 accident where the appellant, Siddique, was a pillion rider on a motorcycle; the car KL12/A-2827 allegedly struck him, with the insurers contesting negligence. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held the driver negligent and awarded Rs. 2,97,731 in total compensation. The appellant challenged the quantum, arguing that the Tribunal erred in fixing a low notional income, failing to properly account for future prospects and disability, and inadequately compensating heads like pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and bystander expenses. Citing Ramachandrappa, the appellant urged a higher notional income rather than the Tribunal’s Rs. 1,500 per month. The High Court, however, re-evaluated the income, noting the appellant is a driver by profession and fixing the notional monthly income at Rs. 4,500, relying on the Ramachandrappa framework. It also applied the Pranay Sethi framework to permit 40% future prospects and Sarla Verma’s multiplier of 18, while recognizing 65% permanent disability. The court recalculated the loss of earnings, future earning power, and other heads, elevating the overall compensation to Rs. 11,48,151, and partially allowed the appeal. The insurer is ordered to deposit this amount with 8% interest from the petition date, within two months, for distribution to the petitioner through the Tribunal.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236 — Notional income for a coolie (basis for notional income in 2002)
Pranay Sethi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) 16 SCC 680 — 40% future prospects and related head allowances
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 — Multiplier 18 for computation of loss of earning power

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant argues that the Tribunal erred in fixing a too-low notional income of Rs. 1,500 per month for 2002 and failed to adequately consider his occupation as a driver. Drawing on Ramachandrappa, he contends the notional income should be higher; Ext. A10 (driving licence) substantiates his profession. He urges applying 40% future prospects and a suitable multiplier with 65% disability, which should lead to a larger compensation, particularly for heads like pain, loss of earning power, and loss of amenities; the overall figure of Rs.11,48,151 reflects a more just assessment.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the Tribunal’s assessment is reasonable and that the evidence does not warrant a higher notional income or different heads of compensation. The insurer maintains the negligence may not be fully established by Siddique, and the quantum determined by the Tribunal is appropriate given the evidence and standard guidelines under MVA Act. They rely on established precedents to argue against excessive enhancement and emphasize that the final order follows due process and statutory norms.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.	2011 (13) SCC 236	Positive	Used to fix notional income for 2002; the court follows Ramachandrappa’s approach to determine the baseline income and adjusts for the petitioner’s driver’s occupation.
Pranay Sethi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.	(2017) 16 SCC 680	Positive	Applied for future prospects (40%) and related compensation heads; supports enhanced compensation.
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	(2009) 6 SCC 121	Positive	Applied multiplier rule of 18 for loss of earning power calculation.

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 Siddique v. United India 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:26539 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025/23RD PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` MACA NO. 2509 OF 2014 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 22.07.2013 IN OPMV ``` ``` NO.3637 OF 2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE. ``` ## **`APPELLANT:`** ``` SIDDIQUE, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.KHADER, AMBALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHOOLAM VAYAL, KUNNAMANGALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SMT.DIVYA B.NAIR SMT.A.MUMTHAZ SRI.R.RETHEESH KUMAR ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 K.S.RAMANARAYANAN, S/O.SUBRAMANIYAN, LAKSHMI NIVAS, P.O.KOTTAKUNNU SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD – 673 592.`** - **`2 C.J.VARGHESE, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.SAKARIA YAKKOB, CHERUKARAYIL HOUSE, P.O.KOTTAKUNNU, SULTHAN BATHERY – 673 592.`** - **`3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, NOORAMMAL BUILDING,`** M.A.C.A.No.2509 of 2014 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26539 ``` ``` -2- ``` ``` IIND FLOOR, MAIN ROAD, SULTHAN BATHERY – 673 592. ``` ``` SC, UNITED INDIA - SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` M.A.C.A.No.2509 of 2014 ``` 2025:KER:26539 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` -3- ``` ## **J U D G M E N T** (Dated this the 14[th] day of March, 2025) The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.3637/2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode 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 30.01.2002. According to the petitioner, on 30.01.2002 at about 2.30 p.m., while he was riding pillion on a motorcycle, a car bearing Registration No.KL12/A-2827 driven by the 2[nd] respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down and as a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries. 3. The 1[st] 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 Rs.11,53,000/-. 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 the M.A.C.A.No.2509 of 2014 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:26539` ``` -4- ``` documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A11, C1 and X1. 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.2,97,731/- 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 Sri.Divya B Nair, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.John Joseph Vettikad, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd ] respondent. 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid insurance 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 driver, earning Rs.5,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.1,500/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. M.A.C.A.No.2509 of 2014 ``` 2025:KER:26539 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` -5- ``` 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 2002 will come to Rs.3,500/-. According to the petitioner, he is a driver by profession getting a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. In order to prove the same, he has produced Ext.A10 copy of driving licence. Since he is a driver by profession, I am inclined to fix the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.4,500/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: _Diffuse axonal injury, fracture right femur, fracture both bones of right leg, trachent injury at T4 level, lacerated wound over right leg and right knee and swelling on right thigh and right leg._ 13. As per Exhibit.C1 disability certificate the petitioner suffered 65% permanent physical disability. It was issued by the medical board. The Tribunal, has accepted the permanent physical disability of the petitioner as such and hence, I do not find any grounds to disbelieve the same. Therefore, the permanent physical disability of the petitioner is accepted as 65%, as fixed by the Tribunal. 14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 20 years. Therefore, 40% of the monthly income is to be added towards future prospects, as held in the decision in **National Insurance Co.** M.A.C.A.No.2509 of 2014 ``` 2025:KER:26539 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` -6- ``` **Ltd v. Pranay Sethi** [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and the multiplier to be applied is 18, 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.8,84,520/-. 15. Since the notional income of the petitioner is re-fixed at Rs.4,500, towards loss of earning he is entitled to get a sum of Rs.54,000/- (4,500 x 12 months). 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.25,000/was awarded, towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.2,500/- was awarded and towards ‘bystander expenses’ Rs.7,000/- 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 very serious injuries in the accident and claims that he was treated as inpatient for 143 days. However, the records produced reveals only the treatment from 30.01.2002 to 30.04.2002. Because of the injuries sustained, the 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', 'extra nourishment' and ‘bystander expenses’ are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-, 75,000/-, 10,000/and 10,000/- respectively. M.A.C.A.No.2509 of 2014 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:26539` ``` -7- ``` 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 petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.11,48,151/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: |**Sl.** **No** **.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount awarded** **by Tribunal (in** **Rs.)**|**Amount** **Awarded in** **Appeal (in Rs.)**| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earning|18,000/-|54,000/-| |2|Transport to hospital|2,000/-|2,000/-| |3|Damage to clothings and other articles|500/-|500/-| |4|Extra nourishment|2,500/-|10,000/-| |5|Bystander expenses|7,000/-|10,000/-| |6|Treatment expenses|12,131/-|12,131/-| |7|Pain and suferings|20,000/-|1,00,000/-| |8|Loss of future earning power|2,10,600/-|8,84,520/-| |9|Loss of amenities of life|25,000/-|75,000/-| ||**Total**|2,97,731/-|**11,48,151/-**| ||Enhanced Rs.8,50,420/-||| 20. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.11,48,151/(Rupees elevan lakhs forty eight thousand one hundred and fifty one only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ M.A.C.A.No.2509 of 2014 ``` 2025:KER:26539 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** 8% per annum, from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, excluding interest for a period of 148 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. 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** ADS