2025:KER:22603 MACA NO.494 OF 2017 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 494 OF 2017 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 18.07.2016 IN OPMV NO.5 OF 2013 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NORTH PARAVUR APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ZAKEER AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED, THETTAYIL HOUSE, KUTTIKKATTUKARA, ELOOR. BY ADV SRI.REJI GEORGE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.3: M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD DIVISION NO.10, FLAT NO. 101-106, N-1,BMC HOUSE, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI P.O, 110 001. BY ADV SMT.P.A.REZIYA THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:22603 MACA NO.494 OF 2017 2 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 5/2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Paravur, 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 27.11.2012. According to the petitioner, on 27.11.2012 at about 11.45 a.m., while he was riding scooter bearing reg.no.KL-42/C-8250 through container road from west to east direction, a car bearing reg.no.KL-5/AB-9278 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the scooter of the petitioner and as a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained injuries. 3. The 1st respondent is the owner , the 2nd respondent is the driver 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 Rs.2,12,000/- limited to Rs.1,00,000/-. 2025:KER:22603 MACA NO.494 OF 2017 3 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 A2 and C1. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. 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.30,330/- rounded to Rs.30,500/- 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.Reji George, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Smt.P.A.Raziya, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent. 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions 2025:KER:22603 MACA NO.494 OF 2017 4 raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the petitioner was self employed, earning Rs.9000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.7000./-. 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 2012 will come to Rs.8500/-. Since the petitioner could not prove his job or income as claimed in the OP, in the light of a dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa (supra), his notional income is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.8500/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: • Pain and tenderness on low back, abrasion forearm, fracture left transverse process of L2, L3, L4 vertebra . 13. In this case the petitioner has not produced any disability certificate and as such the petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation on 2025:KER:22603 MACA NO.494 OF 2017 5 the head 'loss of disability'. 14. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.7000/- being the income for 1 month @Rs.7000/-. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained and the percentage of disability suffered by the petitioner, the petitioner might have lost income at least for a period of 3 months. Therefore, towards 'loss of income' the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.25500/- (8500x3 months). 15. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15000/- Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.1000/- was awarded and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.500/- was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side. 16. The petitioner sustained injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 2 days. Because of the injuries sustained, and the length of treatment undergone by the petitioner, I hold that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the heads ‘pain and sufferings’, 'loss of amenities of life' and 'extra nourishment' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.40000/-, Rs.25000/- and Rs.4000/- respectively. 2025:KER:22603 MACA NO.494 OF 2017 6 17. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 18. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.1,01,330/-, 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 7000 25500 2 Transport to hospital and back home 1000 1000 3 Damages to clothes and articles 500 500 4 Extra nourishment 500 4000 5 Attendants expenses 500 500 6 Treatment expenses 4830 4830 7 Pain and suffering 15000 40000 8 Loss of amenities and enjoyment in life 1000 25000 Total 30330 rounded to 30500 101330 Enhanced /Reduced Rs. 70830 19. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.1,01,330/- (Rupees One Lakhs One Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest at the rate ordered by the Tribunal, from 2025:KER:22603 MACA NO.494 OF 2017 7 the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. (Enhanced compensation will carry interest @8%) 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 Pvv