High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-03-09Partly Allowed

Thulasidas M. S. v. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 335 OF 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2023-03-09
Court Decision / Holding: Partly allowed. Notional income fixed at Rs.10,000/month with 25% future prospects and a multiplier of 14; disability enhanced to Rs.4,20,000 (from Rs.2,01,600); loss of earning revised to Rs.30,000 (from Rs.18,000); bystander expenses retained at Rs.300/day; other heads unchanged. Insurer to deposit enhanced amount before the Tribunal within two months from receipt of a copy of the judgment; interest at 8% per annum from the date of claim till recovery; applicant entitled to costs on the enhanced amount. Delay of 978 days in filing this appeal excluded. The appellant will have liberty to recover enhanced compensation from the Insurance Company.
Final Disposition: Partly Allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Thulasidas M. S

Respondents

The United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.R. Jayalatha

Counsels for Respondents

• P.K. Manoj Kumar, SC

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal arises from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thaliparamba (OP(MV) No.658/2015) challenging the extent of compensation awarded in a road-accident that occurred on 05.09.2015, in which the claimant sustained serious injuries. The appellant, a businessman, contends that the Tribunal adopted an inadequately low notional income (Rs.6,000/month) despite evidence of earnings; he argues for higher compensation under various heads, including bystander expenses for seven days’ hospitalization. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.4,51,100 against the claimed Rs.10,00,000. The High Court, while considering rival submissions, relies on Ramachandrappa to fix a notional income of Rs.10,000/month and on subsequent Supreme Court authorities to acknowledge future prospects, including a robust view for non-skilled work. The judge finds that the appellant’s income was unascertainable; future prospects should be allowed at 25%, consistent with Satheesh E. and Pranay Sethi principles, and that the 20% disability with a 25% uplift yields a revised notional income of Rs.12,500/month. Consequently, the award is partly enhanced: disability to Rs.4,20,000, loss of earnings to Rs.30,000, while other heads remain intact. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months with 8% interest and costs on the enhanced amount, excluding 978 days of delay in filing the appeal.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] — notional income of Rs.10,000/month and consideration of future prospects in compensation; laid down standard for determining income in MACT cases.
Rajani v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [2022 (5) KLT Online 1012 (SC)] — robust view for non-coolie income categories and future prospects; distinguished in the present case.
Pranay Sethi (supra) — guidelines on compensation including future prospects.
Satheesh E. v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Others [(2022) SCC OnLine 1828] — allows 25% future prospects even with significant disability.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant’s counsel submitted that the Tribunal miscalculated by adopting a notional income of Rs.6,000/month despite the appellant’s claim of business activity and earnings; evidence showed higher earnings, and the bystander expenses during seven days of hospitalization were understated. Relying on Ramachandrappa, Rajani, Pranay Sethi and Satheesh E., it was contended that a notional income of Rs.10,000/month be accepted and future prospects (25%) rightly added, with an appropriate multiplier, to enhance compensation for loss of earnings and other heads, including bystander expenses, with due regard to the applicant’s disability (20%). The counsel urged that the appeal be allowed and the total compensation increased accordingly.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurer’s counsel argued that the Tribunal’s computation was correct; there was no compelling evidence to fix Rs.10,000 as notional income and to grant 25% future prospects. The record shows the Tribunal’s awards were just and that the approach in Rajani should not automatically override the established assessment. The insurer asserted that the current compensation in all heads other than those challenged by the appellant should stand and urged dismissal of the appeal.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.	[(2011) 13 SCC 236]	Positive	Cited as the foundational authority for fixing a notional income (Rs.10,000/month) and for addressing future prospects in MACT cases.
Rajani v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited	2022 (5) KLT OnLine 1012 (SC)	Distinguished	Acknowledged for a robust view on future prospects for non-coolie, but the ratio is distinguished in the present case.
Satheesh E. v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Others	2022 SCC OnLine 1828	Positive	Supreme Court endorses 25% future prospects even for higher disability percentages.
Pranay Sethi v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.	supra	Positive	Cited for principles on future prospects in calculating compensation.

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 Thulasidas M. S. v. United Indian 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 MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1944 ``` ``` MACA NO. 335 OF 2020 ``` ``` [AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 24.12.2016 IN OP(MV)NO.658/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALIPARAMBA] ``` ## `APPELLANT/PETITIONER:` ``` THULASIDAS M. S, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. SREEDHARAN, MUNDANPALLIYIL, CHUZHALI POST, SREEKANDAPURAM VIA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 631. ``` ``` BY ADV M.R.JAYALATHA ``` ## `RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:` ``` THE UNITED INDIAN INSURANCE CO. LTD., REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, KARUPPAN ROAD, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001. (POLICY NO.101800314 P 108126683). ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR, SC ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 335 OF 2020 ``` ``` -2- ``` ## `JUDGMENT` ``` The appellant was involved in a road accident on 05.09.2015, when the car in which he was travelling was hit by the offending vehicle, ``` ``` driven in a rash and negligent manner; thus sustainingsevere injuries and had to be hospitalized. He thereafter filedOP(MV) No.658/2015, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thaliparamba (hereinafter referred to ``` ``` as ‘the Tribunal’ for short), seeking a ``` ``` compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-; but which has been allowed only to an extent of Rs.4,51,100/-. He impugns this Award of the Tribunal as being inadequate. ``` ``` 2.Smt.M.R.Jayalatha – learned counsel for ``` ``` the appellant, argued that her client was a ``` ``` businessman at the time of the accident, earning a salary of nearly Rs.15,000/-, but that the Tribunal has adopted his notional income to be ``` ``` MACA NO. 335 OF 2020 ``` ``` -3- ``` ``` only Rs.6,000/-, without any cogent reason. She ``` ``` added that the compensation granted to his client under the head ‘Bystander’s Expenses’ is ``` ``` also extremely low because, he was hospitalized for 7 days. She thus prayed that this Appeal be allowed. ``` ``` 3.In response, Sri.P.K.Manoj Kumar – ``` ``` learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, argued that the computation adopted by the Tribunal is without error and therefore, ``` ``` prayed that this Appeal be dismissed. ``` ``` 4.I have considered the afore rival ``` ``` submissions on the touchstone of the evidence on ``` ``` record – copies of which have been handed over ``` ``` across the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties with the express consent that it can be acted upon by this Court without dispute. ``` ``` 5.On the question of notional income to be adopted in favour of the appellant, I find ``` ``` MACA NO. 335 OF 2020 ``` ``` -4- ``` ``` favour with the submissions of Smt.M.R.Jayalatha ``` ``` - his learned counsel because, even in the case ``` ``` of a person with unascertainable income in the year 2015 – when the accident occurred – the ``` ``` judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ``` ``` Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC ``` ``` 236] mandates that it be reckoned as a minimum of Rs.10,000/-. ``` ``` 6.Further, in Rajani v. Oriental Insurance ``` ``` Company Limited [2022 (5) KLT OnLine 1012 (SC)], ``` ``` the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also said that, in the case of a person who is not a ‘Coolie’ and engaged in skilled or such other avocation, a ``` ``` more robust view should be taken. ``` ``` 7.It is true that, in this case, though ``` ``` the appellant claims that he was a businessman, same was not proved in evidence. However, his ``` ``` statement that he is not a “coolie”, or a person ``` ``` MACA NO. 335 OF 2020 ``` ``` -5- ``` ``` without any work, has not been controverted by the Insurance Company, though they say that the income claimed by him is excessive. In the absence of evidence to show that he was engaged as a businessman, or as a skilled worker, though the ratio in Rajani (supra) may not apply, I am certain that future prospects would be entitled to him, particularly in view of the affirmative declarations inPranay Sethi(supra). This is more so because in Satheesh E. v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Others [(2022) SCC ``` ``` OnLine 1828], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed future prospects of 25%, even to a person who was certified to have only 24% whole- body disability. ``` ``` 8.In this case, the appellant has been certified to have suffered 20% whole-body disability; and even if his future prospects is as above, his income will only be Rs.12,500/-, ``` ``` MACA NO. 335 OF 2020 ``` **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` which, in my view, is extremely reasonable, as per the standards fixed inRamachandrappa (supra). To paraphrase, either if Rajani (supra) ``` ``` is applied, or if future prospects is granted, the notional income of the appellant would only be Rs.12,500/-, which is apposite in the case of a businessman. ``` **==> picture [377 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** ``` compensation awarded under the head “Bystander Expenses” to be inadequate, because the learned Tribunal has awarded nearly Rs.300/- per day for such purpose. I do not intend to disturb it. ``` ``` In the afore circumstances, this Appeal is ``` ``` partly allowed in the following manner: ``` **==> picture [377 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** ``` disability is revised to Rs.4,20,000/- (Rupees four lakhs twenty thousand only), from ``` ``` Rs.2,01,600/-, reckoning the notional income of ``` ``` the appellant to be Rs.10,000/- per month, with ``` ## `MACA NO. 335 OF 2020` ``` -7- ``` ``` 25% future prospects added to it, with the multiplier being 14 and the percentile of disability maintained at 20, as correctly found by the Tribunal. ``` - `(b) Axiomatically, the compensation under` ``` the head “Loss of Earning” would be revised to Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only), from Rs.18,000/-, reckoning the notional income of ``` ``` the appellant to be Rs.10,000/- per month. ``` - `(c) In all other heads, the compensation` ``` granted by the Tribunal will remain intact. ``` ``` Needless to say, theappellant will be at ``` ``` full liberty to recover the compensation, as ``` ``` enhanced by this Court, from the Insurance ``` ``` Company, along with interest at the rate of 8%, ``` ``` as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of claim until it is recovered.He will also be ``` ``` entitled to proportionate costs on the enhanced amount as ordered by the Tribunal. ``` ``` MACA NO. 335 OF 2020 ``` **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` In view of the afore, the amount as fixed above shall be deposited by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy ``` ``` this judgment. ``` **==> picture [377 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** ``` calculating the interest as afore, a period of 978 days - being the delay in filing this Appeal ``` ``` – shall stand excluded. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ## `DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN` ``` JUDGE ``` ``` akv ```