2025:KER:24465 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 2249 OF 2018 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 22.03.2018 IN OPMV NO.750 OF 2017 OF II ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , KOZHIKODE APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ARUN RAJ AGED 32 YEARS S/O. APPUNNI, AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALATHINGAL THODUKAYIL HOUSE, POST PUTHOOR, OMMASSERY, KOZHIKODE - 673 582. BY ADV SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT: UNITED INDIAN INSURANCE CO. LTD. DO: SADHOO BUILDING, FORT ROAD, KANNUR - 670 001. BY ADV SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA NO. 2249 OF 2018 2 2025:KER:24465 JUDGMENT Dated this the 21st day of March, 2025 The petitioner in O.P (M.V) No.750 of 2017 on the files of II Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 17.08.2016. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, on 17.08.2016, at 10.30 p.m., while he was travelling in a bus bearing Registration No.KA-51/D-2219 from Kozhikode to Bangalore and when the bus reached near Madakkimala G.L.P School, due to the rash and negligent driving, the same hit on the wall of the school and the bus turned turtle. In the accident the petitioner sustained serious injuries. 3. The owner and the driver of the offending bus were arrayed as respondents 1 and 2 respectively, whereas, the insurer of the said bus was arrayed as the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent contested the petition by filing a written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. However, the 3rd respondent admitted insurance coverage for the bus MACA NO. 2249 OF 2018 3 2025:KER:24465 involved in the accident. 4. During trial, from the side of the petitioner Exts.A1 to A10 were marked. However, from the side of the respondents no evidence, whatsoever, was produced. 5. After trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 2nd respondent and being the insurer, the 3rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The compensation was quantified as Rs.74,500/- with 8% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs. Dissatisfied by the compensation awarded, the petitioner has come up with this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and also perused the impugned award as well as the available records. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads is too meager. According to the counsel, it was without taking note of the serious nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and overlooking the hardships and MACA NO. 2249 OF 2018 4 2025:KER:24465 inconvenience caused to the petitioner, the tribunal awarded such a meager amount as compensation. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent, insurance company, would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under all heads is reasonable, just, fair, and adequate and warrants no interference. 8. From the rival contentions raised, it is discernible that the main dispute that revolves around this appeal is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded. For the purpose of determining the compensation under the head Loss of Earnings, the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.9,000/-. In the petition, it was claimed that the petitioner was a business man at Bangalore earning an monthly income of Rs.48,000/-. Though a contention as stated above was taken, no convincing evidence, whatsoever, has been adduced from the side of the petitioner to substantiate the said contention regarding his occupation and income. It is true that the petitioner has produced a copy of his TDS for the Year 2017-18 and the same is marked as Ext.A8. As rightly observed by the tribunal, a perusal of Ext.A8 shows that the petitioner had paid an advance tax of Rs.9,000/- in Bangalore Circle of the Income Tax Department, but he claimed refund of Rs.8,000/-. Therefore, it is MACA NO. 2249 OF 2018 5 2025:KER:24465 apparent that the said document will no way help the petitioner to show that he was getting a monthly income of Rs.48,000/-. Nonetheless, admittedly accident occurred in the year 2016 Therefore in view of the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manger, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the tribunal ought to have assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.10,500/- notionally. 9. In order to prove that the petitioner suffered permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident, a disability certificate issued by a Single Doctor attached to a private hospital is seen produced and marked in evidence as Ext.A10. Regarding the acceptability of the said disability certificate serious objections were seen raised before the tribunal from the side of the respondent. Irrespective of those objections, no attempt is seen made from the side of the petitioner to examine the Doctor who issued the said certificate. Accordingly, the tribunal also declined to act upon the disability certificate produced by the petitioner. Now, the sole question to be considered is whether any interference is required on the decision of the tribunal to decline to act upon the disability certificate issued by the Single Doctor. While considering the said MACA NO. 2249 OF 2018 6 2025:KER:24465 question, the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner has to be looked into. The treatment records reveal that the petitioner had sustained an injury on his ear, more specifically, a crush injuries on right pinna. Considering the nature of the injury, I am also of the view that the said injury will not result in any permanent disability. There is absolutely no materials to show that the said injury led to any hearing impairment. Even, in the disability certificate it is not mentioned that the petitioner had suffered any hearing disability in connection with the said injury. As I have already pointed out, when serious objections were raised regarding the acceptability of the said disability certificate, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to take steps to examine the doctor who allegedly issued the disability certificate. Therefore, I am also concurring with the finding of the tribunal that, the petitioner failed in proving that he had sustained permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Resultantly, no amount can be awarded as compensation under the head of permanent disability. 10. Reverting back to the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads, it is to be noted that, under the head of Loss of Earnings tribunal awarded an MACA NO. 2249 OF 2018 7 2025:KER:24465 amount of Rs.9,000/-. For the purpose of awarding the said compensation the tribunal took one month period of loss of earnings. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained, I am of the view that loss of earnings for a period of two months ought to have been taken by the tribunal while awarding compensation under the head Loss of Earnings. Hence, the petitioner is found entitled to get an amount of Rs.21,000/- under the head of Loss of Earnings. After deducting the already awarded amount of Rs.9,000/- the petitioner is entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs.12,000/- as additional compensation under the head Loss of Earnings. 11. The treatment records reveal that the petitioner had undergone two days inpatient treatment in connection with the injuries sustained in the accident. As part of the treatment a surgery was also done. Therefore, the pain and suffering endured by the petitioner has to be taken note of while awarding compensation under the head of Pain and Sufferings. Already an amount of Rs.15,000/- is seen awarded by the tribunal under the said head. I am of the view that an additional compensation of Rs.5000/- has to be awarded as compensation under the head of Pain and Sufferings also. MACA NO. 2249 OF 2018 8 2025:KER:24465 12. Considering the hardship and inconveniences faced by the petitioner in connection with the accident, I am of the view that an additional compensation of Rs.5,000/- under the head Loss of amenities and enjoyment in life also has to be awarded. In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs. 22,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. The respondent insurance company is ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest before the tribunal with proportionate costs within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- JOBIN SEBASTIAN, JUDGE MSA