High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2025-03-07Appeal allowed in part.

V. F. Nijil Peter v. Atmananda Rao, Gopalakrishnan Mallia, and The National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:MACA No.271/2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. Pratheep Kumar
Judgment Date: 2025-03-07
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed in part; the insurer is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.15,07,180/-, with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till deposit/realisation, excluding a period of 217 days delay, within two months from today; upon deposit, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the petitioner, as per rules.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed in part.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

V. F. Nijil Peter

Respondents

Atmananda Rao
Gopalakrishnan Mallia
The National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Rahul Sasi
• Smt. Neethu Prem

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. E. M. Joseph

Case Synopsis & Summary

The appellant Nijil Peter challenged a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in MACA No.271/2016 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arising from a 10.11.2011 accident. The Tribunal held negligence by the driver of the offending goods autorickshaw and awarded Rs.7,47,100 in total compensation, directing the insurer to pay. Aggrieved, the appellant contends the quantum was inordinately low due to incorrect notional income. He claimed to be a tile worker earning Rs.12,500 per month, but the Tribunal fixed Rs.4,000; he relies on the Ramachandrappa principle to fix the notional income higher at Rs.8,000. The insurer counters that the Tribunal’s figure is reasonable. The court notes the injuries (severe open wound with femur fracture, deformity of the right leg, 40% permanent disability, and 44 days inpatient treatment) and applies the frameworks established in Pranay Sethi (future prospects) and Sarla Verma (multiplier 18) given the claimant’s age of 19 at the time of the accident. Notional income is re-fixed at Rs.8,000, resulting loss of earning Rs.96,000; compensation heads for pain, nourishment, and amenities are enhanced; bystander and marriage-prospect expenses are added. The appeal is allowed in part, with the total revised compensation at Rs.15,07,180 to be deposited by the insurer within two months, and disbursed to the petitioner on deposit according to rules.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional income principle (Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.)
Future prospects and 40% addition (National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi)
Multiplier rule (Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in fixing the notional monthly income of the injured claimant. Though he claimed to be a tile worker earning Rs 12,500 per month, the Tribunal assessed him at Rs 4,000. Counsel argues that the notional income should be higher, at least Rs 8,000 as per Ramachandrappa (supra), since the employee's occupation and earnings were not established. The appellant also relies on the principles of future prospects and the applicable multiplier under Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma, to enhance the compensation for injuries, as well as to adjust heads such as pain, loss of amenities of life, and other heads in light of the serious injuries and extended hospitalization. He contends the bystander expense and marriage prospects should also be considered.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the Tribunal rightly found negligence and that the notional income of Rs 4,000 per month was reasonable given the lack of proof of actual earnings. They argue that Ramachandrappa was not shown to apply to the facts here and urge caution in revising the income. They support the Tribunal's assessment of heads and dispute over enhanced amounts, arguing that the existing award already reflects appropriate compensation.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.	2011 (13) SCC 236	Positive	Court applied the Ramachandrappa principle to fix notional income at Rs.8,000 per month where actual earnings were not proven.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi	2017 (16) SCC 680	Positive	Court applied Pranay Sethi for future prospects (40%) in a 19-year-old claimant and related aspects of compensation.
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation	2009 (6) SCC 121	Positive	Court applied the multiplier of 18 as held in Sarla Verma for 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 V. F. Nijil Peter v. Atmananda Rao, Gopalakrishnan Mallia, and The 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:23119 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 271 OF 2016`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2015 IN OPMV NO.948 OF 2012 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`APPELLANT/PETITIONER:`** ``` V.F.NIJIL PETER AGED 22 YEARS S/O. FRANCIS V.P., VELUTHAMANNUNGAL HOUSE, MANASSERY, MUNDAMVELI P.O., COCHIN-7. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.RAHUL SASI SMT.NEETHU PREM ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 ATMANANDA RAO S/O. MADHAVA RAO, 12/312, VAISHNAVI HOUSE, ARAKKAPARAMBU ROAD, PANDIKKUDI, MATTANCHERY, COCHIN-682002.`** - **`2 GOPALAKRISHNA MALLIA S/O. SREENIVASA, MALLIA, HOUSE NO.8/95, SOUTH CHERLAI, COCHIN-682002.`** - **`3 THE NATIONAL ISURANCE CO. LTD. REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,`** **MACA No.271/2016** ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`2025:KER:23119`** ``` BRANCH OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682011. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.E.M.JOSEPH ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **MACA No.271/2016** ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`2025:KER:23119`** ## **J U D G M E N T** Dated this the 07[th] day of March, 2025 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) NO.948 OF 2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, 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 10.11.2011. According to the petitioner, on 10.11.2011 at about 10.45 a.m., while he was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KL.07.BG859 along the Edakochi-Thoppumpady pocket road, a Goods Autorikshaw bearing Reg. No. KL.43.B.141, driven by the 2[nd] respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down as a resulted to which he sustained injuries. 3. The 1st respondent is the owner and 3rd 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 **MACA No.271/2016** ``` 4 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`2025:KER:23119`** Rs.21,82,500/- limited to Rs.10,00,000/-. 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 documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A11. Ext. C1 and C2 are the reports issued by the Medical Board. 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.7,47,100/- 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. Rahul Sasi, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. E. M. Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd ] respondent. **MACA No.271/2016** ``` 5 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:23119 ``` 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 notional income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the petitioner was working as Tile Worker, earning Rs.12,500/per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.4,000/-. 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.8,000/-. Since the petitioner could not prove his job or income as claimed, in the light of a dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Ramachandrappa (supra)** , his notional income is fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.8,000/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: - _Severe open wound on the right thigh with femur fracture,_ - • _Deformity to right leg,_ **MACA No.271/2016** ``` 6 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`2025:KER:23119`** - _Minor abrasions on little finger, and_ - _X-ray shows fracture to tibia and fibula._ 13. As per Exhibit C1 disability certificate the petitioner suffered 40% 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 40%, as fixed by the Tribunal. 14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 19 years. Therefore, 40% of the monthly income is to be added towards future 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 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.9,67,680/-. 15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.48,000/-, being the income for 12 months @Rs4,000/-. Since his notional income is re-fixed, the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.96,000/-(8,000 x 12 months) towards loss of earning. **MACA No.271/2016** ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** **`2025:KER:23119`** 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.5,000/- was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side. Towards 'loss of amenities of life', nothing was awarded. 17. The petitioner sustained very serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 44 days. 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’, and 'extra nourishment' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.75,000/-, and 10,000/- respectively. For the very same reasons, towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.50,000/- is awarded. 18. Towards ‘bystander expense’ and ‘marriage prospects’, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount. Since the petitioner was treated as inpatient for 44 days and sustained very serious injuries, this Court is inclined to give Rs.10,000/- and Rs.25,000/towards ‘bystander expense’ and ‘marriage prospects’, respectively. 19. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be **MACA No.271/2016** ``` 8 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`2025:KER:23119`** just and reasonable. 20. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.7,47,100/-, 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**|**48,000/-**|**96,000/-**| |2|Transport to Hospital and back to home|3,000/-|3,000/-| |**3**|**Extra nourishment**|**5,000/-**|**10,000/-**| |4|Damage to clothes and articles|500/-|500/-| |5|Attendant expenses|10,000/-|10,000/-| |**6**|**Bystander expenses**|**Nil**|**10,000/-**| |7|Medical Expenses|2,10,000/-|2,10,000/-| |**8**|**Compensation for pain and** **sufferings**|**75,000/-**|**75,000/-**| |9|Compensation for disfiguration|50,000/-|50,000/-| |**10**|**Compensation for** **continuing and** **permanent/partial disability**|**3,45,600/-**|**9,67,680/-**| |**11**|**Loss of Amenities**|**Nil**|**50,000/-**| |**12**|**Loss of marriage prospects**|**Nil**|**25,000/-**| ||**Total**|**7,47,100/-**|**15,07,180/-**| ||Enhanced Rs.|7,60,080/-|| 21. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.15,07,180/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Seven Thousand and One Eighty Only), less the **MACA No.271/2016** ``` 9 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** **`2025:KER:23119`** amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, excluding interest for a period of 217 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** HKH/07.03.2025