Sudhababu v. Paul, Hamsakooya and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Sudha
Judgment Date: 2024-03-26
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal partly allowed. Notional income fixed at ₹9,500 per month; pain and suffering enhanced to ₹20,000; several heads re-assessed; total compensation enhanced to ₹1,17,412 with 7.5% interest from the petition date and costs. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within 60 days, after which the Tribunal will disburse the amount. Interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part; enhanced compensation; 60-day deposit condition; disposal of interlocutory applications.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SUDHABABU

Respondents

PAUL
HAMSAKOYA
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.V.Thamban
• Sri. R. Reji
• Smt.Thara Thamban
• Sri. B. Bipin
• Sri. Arun Bose

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Titus Mani

Case Synopsis & Summary

This MACA arises from an award in O.P. (MV) No.1544/2014 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara, on 30 November 2018, granting the claimant, Sudhababu, ₹1,00,412 with 7.5% interest and costs for injuries suffered in a 2014 collision between a KSRTC bus and a van. The Tribunal found negligence on the part of the bus driver and held the other respondents liable. The appellant challenges the Tribunal’s assessment of income and several heads of compensation, arguing that Exts. A10–A13 prove a monthly income of ₹25,000 and that the notional income used by the Tribunal (₹5,500) underestimates the claimant’s actual earnings. The insurer contends that the evidence was properly evaluated and that the compensation claimed is excessive. The High Court, applying the Supreme Court’s Ramachandrappa doctrine on notional income for self-employed claimants, fixes the appellant’s notional monthly income at ₹9,500 for 2014 and partly modifies the award. It increases pain and suffering to ₹20,000 and recomputes several heads; the total compensation is enhanced to ₹1,17,412 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the petition date. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within 60 days, and after deposit, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount in accordance with law. Interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ramachandrappa vs Manager, Royal Sundaram Allian Co. Ltd., (2011) 13 SCC 236

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal erred by disregarding documentary evidence (Exts. A10–A13) and the testimony of PW1 showing a monthly income of ₹25,000, while applying a lower notional income (₹5,500). The Ramachandrappa doctrine should guide the court to fix notional income at ₹9,500 per month for 2014, and the disability and other heads deserve re-evaluation. The tribunal’s inadequacy in awarding pain and suffering, and lack of disfiguration compensation, are challenged. The evidence indicates higher earnings and injury impact, warranting higher compensation.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the Tribunal correctly evaluated evidence, and the claimant’s income as self-employed remains properly assessed at a notional level; Ext. A10 is not credible, and the compensation claimed is excessive. The appellant’s injuries do not justify disfiguration or large pain-and-suffering awards, and the order fair for the circumstances in 2014.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Allian Co. Ltd.	(2011) 13 SCC 236	Positive	Used as the guiding doctrine for fixing notional income for a self-employed claimant, leading to the ₹9,500/month notional income outcome.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA** **TUESDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1946** **MACA NO. 47 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 30.11.2018 IN OPMV NO.1544 OF 2014 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-II & IST ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , MAVELIKKARA. APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **SUDHABABU, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O BABU, KUMARAPURI, P UTHUPALLY P.O., PUTHUPALLY VILLAGE. BY ADVS. M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SRI.ARUN BOSE** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:** **1 PAUL, S/O PAILY, KAKKATHARA HOUSE, PERUMPADAPPU, EDAKOCHI-682006. 2 HAMSAKOYA, S/O MOIDU, HOUSE NO.4/794-B, ADHIKARIVALAPPU, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682002.** - **3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ERNAKULAM-682017.** **BY ADV SRI.TITUS MANI** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 ## **M.A.C.A.No.47 of 2019** ## **C.S.SUDHA, J.** ## **-----------------------------------M.A.C.A.No.47 of 2019 ----------------------------------------------------** **Dated this the 26[th] day of March 2024** ## **J U D G M E N T** This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the claimant in O.P. (MV)No.1544/2014 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 30/11/2018. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition. 2. According to the petitioner, on 04/04/2014 at about 02:00 am, while she was travelling in a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KL-15/A-218 along the Kollam-Alappuzha NH, the bus collided with a van bearing registration No.KL-43/E-9662 3 ## **M.A.C.A.No.47 of 2019** driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the incident. The first respondent driver; the second respondent owner and the third respondent insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner. Hence he claimed an amount of ₹4 lakhs as compensation under various heads. 3. Before the Tribunal, the first and second respondents were . _ex parte_ 4. The third respondent insurer filed written statement admitting that the offending vehicle was having a valid insurance policy at the relevant time. It was however, contended that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner and not due to the negligence of the first respondent. It was also contended that the compensation claimed was excessive. 5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the petitioner. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents. 4 ## **M.A.C.A.No.47 of 2019** 6. The Tribunal on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹1,00,412/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up in appeal. 7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court. 8. Heard both sides. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/injured that the Tribunal went wrong in rejecting the evidence adduced by the petitioner regarding her monthly income. My attention was drawn to Exts.A10, A11 and the testimony of PW1 to substantiate the argument that the petitioner was drawing a monthly income of ₹25,000/- at the time of the incident. 5 ## **M.A.C.A.No.47 of 2019** Despite oral and documentary evidence being on record, the Tribunal wrongly rejected the same and fixed the notional income as ₹5,500/-, which finding requires to be interfered with, goes the argument. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the pleadings and evidence has been properly appreciated and hence no interference is required. 10. In the claim petition, the petitioner, a drama artist, states that she is 'self employed'. The petitioner examined PW1, Director, Assisi Arts Club, Kollam who deposed that the petitioner, a senior artist, in his institution was under a contract for the period from 01/01/2014 to 31/12/2014 and that her monthly salary was ₹25,000/- and that Ext.A10 is the certificate issued by him stating so. The Tribunal disbelieved Ext.A10 and PW1 because the petitioner had no such case in the claim petition. On going through the claim petition, I find that not only has the petitioner stated that she was 'self employed', but has also stated her monthly income to be ₹10,000/-. In the light of such 6 ## **M.A.C.A.No.47 of 2019** pleadings, the Tribunal was justified in not relying on Ext.A10 or the testimony of PW1. However, in the light of the dictum in **Ramachandrappa vs Manager, Royal Sundaram Allian.Co.Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236,** wherein the monthly income of a coolie in the year 2004 was taken as ₹4,500/- with an increase of ₹500/- every year, the monthly income of the petitioner herein, an artist, fixed at ₹5,500/- in the year 2014 does not seem justified. The incident took place in the year 2014. Based on **Ramachandrappa** _(Supra),_ the petitioner's notional income can be fixed at ₹9,500/- per month. To that extent the award will stand modified. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that though the amount of compensation claimed for pain and suffering was ₹50,000/-, the Tribunal has granted only ₹15,000/which is very low taking into account the injuries sustained by the petitioner. No amount has been awarded for the dis-figuration and the facial injuries caused, which has adversely affected her 7 ## **M.A.C.A.No.47 of 2019** professional prospects. As held by the Tribunal, I find no evidence of dis-figuration or deformity caused which had adversely affected the petitioner's acting career. Admittedly, the injuries sustained by the petitioner are – (i).face injury; (ii) maxillary alveolar fracture with deep laceration 4cm in the ventral aspect of tongue left side; (iii) severe bleeding from mouth and (iv) fracture upper six central incisors. Taking into account the injuries sustained an amount of ₹20,000/- can be granted towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal had already granted ₹15,000/-. Therefore, the enhancement on this account will be ₹5,000/- 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that the amount awarded under extra nourishment which was claimed at ₹3,000/- has not been granted and that the said finding also needs to be interfered with. I disagree, because an amount of ₹1,000/- has been granted by the tribunal, which in my opinion is quite reasonable. 8 ## **M.A.C.A.No.47 of 2019** ## 13. The impugned Award is partly modified thus- |Sl. No.|Head of claim|Amount claimed|Amount awarded by Tribunal|Modified in appeal| |---|---|---|---|---| |1.|Loss of earnings|₹10,000/-|₹16,500/-|₹9,500/- per month x 3 months =₹28,500/-| |2.|Partial loss of earnings|₹1,000/-|-|- (No change)| |3.|Transport to hospital|₹3,000/-|₹1,500/-|₹1,500/- (No change)| |4.|Extra nourishment|₹3,000/-|₹1,000/-|₹1,000/- (No change)| |5.|Damage to clothing|₹1,000/-|₹500/-|₹500/- (No change)| |6.|Medical expenses|₹5000/-|₹49,712/-|₹49,712/- (No change)| |7.|Bystander expenses Future treatment|₹3,000/- ₹5,000/-|₹1,200/- -|₹1,200/- (No change)| |8.|Pain and suffering compensation for disfiguration|₹50,000/-|₹15,000/-|₹20,000/- (₹15,000/- +₹5,000/-)| |9.|Disability income|₹1,50,000/-|-|- (No change)| |10.|Compensation for loss of earning power|-|-|- (No change)| |11.|Loss of amenities- compensation for deformity|₹25,000/-|₹15,000/-|₹15,000/- (No change)| |12.|Total|₹4,00,000/-|₹1,00,412/-|₹1,17,412/-| In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of ₹ **17,000** /- (total 9 ## **M.A.C.A.No.47 of 2019** compensation ₹1,17,412/- that is, ₹1,00,412/- granted by the Tribunal + ₹17,000/- in appeal) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization and proportionate costs. The third respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest and costs before the Tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy the judgment. On deposit of the compensation amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the petitioner/appellant at the earliest in accordance with law. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- **C.S.SUDHA JUDGE** Jms