Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56222
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
K.C.SURESH – Appellant
Versus
KUMARAN – Respondent
MACA NO. 21 OF 2021|O.P.(M.V.) NO.584 OF 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.P.V.Chandra Mohan
For the Respondents: Sri.E.M.Joseph
Modification of notional income estimation in personal injury claims based on evidentiary standards.
Headnote:The Court analyzed the Motor Vehicles Act and the principles established in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited. The facts revealed the appellant, a Manager earning Rs.15,000 per month, failed to provide evidentiary support for his claim. The Court found that a notional income of Rs.8,500 per month was appropriate and modified the Tribunal's award accordingly. The issues revolved around the estimation of notional income and the adequacy of the previous award. The Court reasoned that the absence of evidence necessitated a reassessment, ultimately allowing the appeal partly with specific financial adjustments.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the accident and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. estimation of notional income adjustment. (Para 3) |
J U D G M E N T
The appeal is at the instance of the injured in O.P.(M.V.)
No.584 of 2013 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal’), seeking to challenge the award dated 30.01.2020. The accident occurred on
27.04.2012 when the claimant was aged 37 years.
2. Heard Sri.P.V.Chandra Mohan, the learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Sri.E.M.Joseph, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent – insurance company.
3. The appeal is instituted seeking enhancement of the notional income fixed by the Tribunal. A perusal of the impugned award would show that the claimant had stated that he was working with a Speciality Dental Clinic as a Manager, earning an -
amount of Rs.15,000/ per month. However, it is not in dispute that no supporting evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced by the appellant. When that be so, necessarily, an estimation as regards the notional income of the appellant requires to be carried out. With reference to the accident which took place in the year 2012, and with reference to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited -
[(2011) 13 SCC 236] , an amount of Rs.8,500/ per month ought to have been fixed as the notional income of the appellant. Coupled with this, this Court also notices that, right from the day one onwards, the claimant had pointed out that he was working as a Manager, as recorded in paragraph No.12 of the impugned award. When that be so, I am of the opinion that a minor modification, even with reference to the principles laid down in Ramachandrappa (supra), requires to be applied to the case at hand. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal, to the extent of fixing -
the notional income at Rs.5,500/ , is modified, and it is ordered -
that the monthly income be fixed at Rs.9,000/ per month. 4. In such circumstances, with the afore modification, the appellant would be entitled to the following amounts;
In the result, this appeal is partly allowed, and the impugned award is modified, entitling the appellant to get an -
additional amount of Rs.2,35,368/ (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Eight only), along with the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal, to be paid by the
3rd respondent – Insurance Company and the same shall be recovered from the 1st respondent owner. Needless to say, all other findings and directions of the Tribunal in the impugned award, including the rate of interest, will remain unaltered.
