High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAppeal allowed; enhanced compensation by Rs.1,4...
Subairkutty P.C. v. Mohammed P, V. Saidalavi and Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Case / Petition Number:MACA.No.813 OF 2015(D)
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- C.S.Dias
- Judgment Date
- 2021-02-10
- Court Decision / Holding
- In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.1,47,108/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Eight only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. The third respondent shall deposit the additional compensation awarded in the appeal with interest and proportionate costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, after deducting the liability, if any, of the petitioner towards balance court-fee and legal benefit fund. The disbursement of the compensation and the additional compensation to the petitioner shall be made in accordance with law.
- Final Disposition
- Appeal allowed; enhanced compensation by Rs.1,47,108; interest at 9% p.a. on enhanced amount; insurer to deposit within two months; costs and disbursement per law.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Subairkutty P.C.
Respondents
- Mohammed P
- V. Saidalavi
- Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • T.K.Koshy
- • Abe Rajan
- • Sabu I.Koshy
Counsels for Respondents
- • Rajesh Thomas
- • PMM Najeeb Khan
Case Synopsis & Summary
Subairkutty P.C., the appellant, challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arising from a road accident on 30 April 2006. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 1,44,454 against the owner and insurer with 9% interest, taking a conservative view of income, disability and other heads, and directed payment by the Insurance Company. The High Court, sitting in appeal, undertook a reappraisal in light of Supreme Court precedents on ‘just compensation.’ It re-evaluated several components: notional income for a person in the unorganized sector, disability percentage, and bystander expenses. The Court fixed the notional income at Rs. 6,000 per month (instead of Rs. 3,500) based on precedents such as Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq; awarded bystander expenses at Rs. 9,000 (₹250 per day for 36 days); revised loss of earnings accordingly; recognized future prospects at 10% of total compensation following Pappu Deo Yadav and Raj Kumar; kept other heads (transport to hospital, medical expenses, pain and sufferings, etc.) largely as assessed by the Tribunal. The Court concluded the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation. The appeal was allowed, with a further sum of Rs. 1,47,108 added to the award, at 9% interest from filing until realization, with proportionate costs and two-month deposit window for the insurer to satisfy the enhanced amount, after deducting any balance court-fee and legal benefits.
Provisions of Law Cited
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Just compensation must be determined on the basis of fairness, reasonableness and equitability; the principle of ‘just compensation’ is to be viewed through fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of equitability.
- Notional income for unorganized sector fixed by Ramachandrappa (noted decisions) and Sadiq; subsequent Kerala cases (Soman) inform adjustments.
- Future prospects for persons injured in motor accidents (as per Pappu Deo Yadav and Raj Kumar).
- Bystander's expenses are payable in appropriate circumstances (e.g., Rs. 250 per day).
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in undervaluing the appellant’s income, disability and bystander expenses. He claimed the notional income for a poultry businessman of his age in 2006 should be higher than Rs.3,500 per month, supported by the evidence of his 36-day hospitalisation and the 24% disability finding by the Medical Board. He urged recognition of future prospects and bystander expenses (Rs.23,000 claimed) and argued for a higher overall compensation.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argued that the Tribunal awarded just compensation, that there was no scope for enhancement, and that the claim of exorbitant amounts lacked basis; they emphasised the Tribunal’s acceptance of evidence and declined to apply higher notional income or future prospects beyond what was already awarded.
Cited Precedents (6)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi | [(2017) 16 SCC 680] | Positive | Defines the concept of ‘just compensation’ to be determined on fairness, reasonableness and equitability, guiding the court’s approach to assessment. |
| Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance | [(2011) 13 SCC 236] | Positive | Supports use of notional income for unorganized sector (e.g., Rs.4500 per month as baseline). |
| Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. | [(2014) 2 SCC 735] | Positive | Affirms notional income levels for unorganized sector (e.g., Rs.6500 per month) and related principles. |
| Soman v. Jinesh James and Others | [ILR 2020 (3) Kerala 1003] | Positive | Kerala authority cited for notional income considerations and adjustments in 2010 context. |
| Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar and Others | Civil Appeal No.2567/2020 | Positive | Three-judge bench recognizing future prospects for injured persons. |
| Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar | [2011 (1) KLT 620(SC)] | Positive | Supports including future prospects in compensation calculations. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Subairkutty P.C. v. Mohammed P, V. Saidalavi and Branch Manager, Oriental 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.
1
MACA.No.813 OF 2015
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 21ST MAGHA,1942**
## **MACA.No.813 OF 2015(D)**
**AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1223/2007 DATED 17-06-2014 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PATHANAMTHITTA**
## **APPELLANT/S:**
**SUBAIRKUTTY P.C KALLUVILA PUTHENVEEDU HOUSE, THOTTAMAN MURI, RANNY VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK, THOTTAMON P.O.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.KOSHY SRI.ABE RAJAN SRI.SABU I.KOSHY**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
|**1**|**MOHAMMED P**|
|---|---|
||**S/O MOIDEEN, TAJ NIVAS, 28/06, PONNIYERI HOUSE,**|
||**ALANU DEASON, VAILATHOOR-KARINGAPARA ROAD,**|
||**NURSERYPADY, PAINUMUNDAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,**|
||**PIN-676505.**|
|**2**|**V.SAIDALAVI**|
||**VARIKKOOTTIL HOUSE, ADRASERRY P.O.,KAVUPPURA (VIA),**|
||**PAINUMUNDAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN:676 505.**|
|**3**|**BRANCH MANAGER**|
||**THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE,**|
||**P.B.NO.8, JOTHI SUPER BAZAR, THODUPUZHA, PIN:685**|
||**585.**|
||**R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH THOMAS**|
||**R3 BY ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN**|
**THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
2
MACA.No.813 OF 2015
## **C.S.DIAS, J. ====================== MACA No.813 of 2015 ====================== Dated this the 10[th] day of February, 2021.**
## **JUDGMENT**
The appellant was the petitioner in OP (MV) No.1223 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. The respondents in the claim petition are the respondents in this appeal. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the claim petition.
2. The petitioner had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries he sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 30.4.2006.
3. The case of the petitioner in the claim petition, in short, was that while he was walking on the Kakkadu-Pookilasu road, a pickup Van
3
MACA.No.813 OF 2015
bearing registration No.KL-10-W-1155 driven by the first respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the petitioner. The offending vehicle belongs to the second respondent and was insured with the third respondent.
4. According to the petitioner, he was aged 52 years at the time of accident. He was doing poultry business and was earning a monthly income of Rs.8,000/-. He was taken to Almas Hospital, Kakkadu and, thereafter, he was referred for better treatment to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, where he was an inpatient till 23.5.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, where he was treated as an inpatient till 4.6.2006. The petitioner was treated as an inpatient for a period of 36 days. The petitioner suffered serious injuries in the accident including a multiple fracture on the left humerus, multiple fracture to his ribs, spleenic rupture and
4
MACA.No.813 OF 2015
serious head injuries. The petitioner claimed a total compensation of Rs.6,20,250/-, which was limited to Rs.2,40,250/-.
5. The respondents 1 and 2 were set ex parte. The third respondent – the Insurance Company - filed a written-statement, inter alia, admitting the insurance policy of the offending vehicle. However, it was contended that there was violation of the policy. Hence, the petitioner had to recover compensation, if any awarded, from the respondents 1 and 2. The amount claimed by the petitioner was exorbitant and excessive. Hence, the third respondent prayed that the claim petition be dismissed.
6. Exts A1 to A8 were produced and marked in evidence on the side of the petitioner. The respondents did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
7. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and materials on record, by the
5
MACA.No.813 OF 2015
impugned award allowed the claim petition, in part, by permitting the petitioner to recover from the respondents jointly and severally an amount of Rs.1,44,454/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization along with proportionate cost. The third respondent was directed to satisfy the award.
8. The comparative table of compensation that was claimed by the petitioner and that was awarded by the Tribunal is as follows:-
|SI.<br>No|Head of claim|Amount<br>claimed<br>(in rupees)|Amount<br>awarded<br>(in rupees)|
|---|---|---|---|
|1|Loss of earnings|128000/-|10500/-|
|2|Transportation to<br>hospital|9250/-|2000/-|
|3|Extra nourishment|9000/-|2000/-|
|4|Damage to clothing|1000/-|500/-|
|5|Medical expenses|90000/-|20154/-|
|6|Bystander's<br>expenses|23000/-|Nil|
|7|Pain and sufferings|60000/-|20000/-|
|8|Compensation for||69300/-|
6
MACA.No.813 OF 2015
||loss of earning<br>capacity|260000/-||
|---|---|---|---|
|9|Loss of amenities<br>and enjoyment of<br>life|40000/-|20000/-|
||Total|6,20,250/-<br>limited<br>to<br>2,40,250/-|1,44,454/-|
9. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is in the appeal.
10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.
11. The sole question that emerges for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
12. 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 the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, deals with the concept of 'just compensation'
7
MACA.No.813 OF 2015
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 non-violation of the principle of equitability.
13. The petitioner met with the accident on 30.4.2006. He was aged 52 years at the time of accident. The petitioner claimed that he was doing poultry business and was earning a monthly income of Rs.8,000/-. The petitioner produced Ext A5 wound certificate in order to substantiate the injuries sustained him. A1 FIR was by Similarly, Exts produced to prove that the first respondent had caused the accident. The Police have, in Ext A4 charge-sheet in Crime No.154/2006 of the Tirurangadi Police Station, found that the accident was caused by the first respondent.
14. The petitioner was examined by a Medical Board, which certified by Ext A7 disability certificate
8
MACA.No.813 OF 2015
that the petitioner has permanent partial disability of 24%. However, the Tribunal after seeing the petitioner came to the conclusion that he has only 15% of disability. The Tribunal fixed the petitioner's notional income at Rs.3,500/- instead of Rs.8,000/- as claimed in the claim petition. The petitioner had claimed an amount of Rs.23,000/- as bystander's expenses, but no amount was awarded to the petitioner under the said head of account, even though he was hospitalised for a period of 36 days.
15. The bone of contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is very low; that the Tribunal failed to award any amount as compensation under the head bystander expenses; that the assessment made by the Tribunal regarding the permanent disability of the petitioner at 15% is wrong in view of the findings by the competent Medical Board in Ext A7 disability certificate. Hence, she prayed that the amount of compensation
9
MACA.No.813 OF 2015
awarded by the Tribunal may be enhanced in the appeal.
16. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent argued that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation to the petitioner. There is no scope for any inference in the appeal.
17. The specific case of the petitioner in the claim petition was that he was doing poultry business and was earning a monthly income of Rs.8,000/-.
18. Going by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance [(2011) 13 SCC 236]** and **Syed Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd. - [(2014) 2 SCC 735]** and a decision of this Court in **Soman vs. Jinesh James and others [ILR 2020 (3) Kerala 1003]** the notional income for persons who are working in unorganized sectors has been fixed in **Ramachandrappa** (supra) at Rs.4,500/- per month in the year 2004, in **Syed Sadiq** (supra), at Rs.6,500/-
10
MACA.No.813 OF 2015
per month in the year 2006, and in **Soman** (supra), at Rs.7,500/- per month in the year 2010.
19. Considering the parameters laid down in the aforecited decisions and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was doing poultry business and that the accident occurred on 30.4.2006, I am of the considered opinion that petitioner's notional income can safely be refixed at Rs.6,000/-, instead of Rs.3,500/- as fixed by the Tribunal.
## **Bystander's expenses**
20. The petitioner had claimed an amount of Rs.23,000/- towards bystander expenses. He had specifically averred in column No.13 of the claim petition that he underwent treatment as an inpatient at the Almas Hospital, Kakkadu, the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode and the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram for a period of 36 days. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the said head of account. Considering the fact that the accident was
11
MACA.No.813 OF 2015
in the year 2006, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for bystander expenses @ of 250/- per day. Hence the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.9,000/- under the said head of account.
## **Loss of earnings**
21. In view of the refixaton of the notional income of the petitioner @ Rs.8,000/- per month, the loss of earnings of the petitioner is refixed at Rs.18,000/- instead of Rs.10,500/- awarded by the Tribunal.
22. A three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar and others (Civil Appeal No.2567/2020)** after considering the decisions in **Syed Sadiq** (supra) **, Raj Kumar** vs **Ajay Kumar [2011 (1) KLT 620(SC)]** and in **Pranay Sethi** (supra) has held that person suffering injuries has to be awarded future prospects. Taking into consideration the age of the petitioner and
12
MACA.No.813 OF 2015
multiplier of 11, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for future prospects @ 10% of the total compensation.
## **Other heads of claim**
23. With respect to the amounts awarded under the other heads of claim, namely, (i) transport to hospital, (ii) extra nourishment, (iii) damage of clothing, (iv) medical expenses, (v) pain and sufferings, and (vi) loss of amenities, I find that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation to the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any ground to enhance the compensation awarded under any of the heads mentioned above.
24. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, materials on record and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforecited decisions, I am of the firm opinion that the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the amounts as modified and re-calculated above, and given in the table below for easy reference.
13
MACA.No.813 OF 2015
|SI.<br>No|Head of claim|Amount<br>claimed<br>(in rupees)|Amount<br>awarded<br>(in<br>rupees)|Amounts<br>modified<br>and<br>recalculat<br>ed by this<br>Court|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|1|Loss<br>of<br>earnings|128000/-|10500/-|18000/-|
|2|Transportation<br>to hospital|9250/-|2000/-|2000/-|
|3|Extra<br>nourishment|9000/-|2000/-|2000/-|
|4|Damage<br>to<br>clothing|1000/-|500/-|500/-|
|5|Medical<br>expenses|90000/-|20154/-|20154/-|
|6|Bystander's<br>expenses|23000/-|Nil|9000/-|
|7|Pain<br>and<br>sufferings|60000/-|20000/-|20000/-|
|8|Compensation<br>for<br>loss<br>of<br>earning<br>capacity|260000/-|69300/-|69300/-|
|9|Loss<br>of<br>amenities and<br>enjoyment<br>of<br>life|40000/-|20000/-|20000/-|
|10|Loss due to<br>disability with<br>future<br>prospects|--|--|1,30,608/-|
||Total|6,20,250/-<br>limited<br>to<br>2,40,250/-|1,44,454/<br>-|2,91,562/-|
14
MACA.No.813 OF 2015
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.1,47,108/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Eight only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. The third respondent shall deposit the additional compensation awarded in the appeal with interest and proportionate costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, after deducting the liability, if any, of the petitioner towards balance court-fee and legal benefit fund. The disbursement of the compensation and the additional compensation to the petitioner shall be made, in accordance with law.
**Sd/-**
**C.S.DIAS**
**JUDGE**
**SKS/10.2.2021**