2025:KER:27131 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2025/29TH PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 591 OF 2017 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT 31.08.2015 IN OPMV NO.805 OF 2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE. APPELLANT: MANIKANDAN. AGED 35 YEARS. S/O.VELAYUDAN, PUTHANVEEDU HOUSE, EMBAT P.O, I.T.C.COLONY, PARIYARAM, KANNUR. BY ADV SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL RESPONDENT: RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED CALICUT,CITADEL ARCADE, 2ND FLOOR, R.C ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001. BY ADV JACOB MATHEW P THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No.591/2017 2025:KER:27131 -2- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 20th day of March, 2025 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.805/2013 on the file of the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode 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 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 09.03.2013. According to the petitioner, on 09.03.2013 at about 12.00 noon, while he was walking along the side of the road, near Balusherry junction, a car bearing Registration No.KL-57/F-6022 negligently driven by the 1st respondent knocked him down and as a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries. 3. The 1st respondent is the driver cum owner and 2nd 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.43,60,0000/-. 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 M.A.C.A.No.591/2017 2025:KER:27131 -3- evidence Exts.A1 to A7 and C1. No evidence was adduced by the respondent. 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.4,30,150/- 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.Zubair Pulikool, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.P.Jacob Mathew, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd 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 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 working as a coolie, earning Rs.18,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.5,000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. M.A.C.A.No.591/2017 2025:KER:27131 -4- 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 2013 will come to Rs.9,000/-. Since the petitioner could not prove his 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.9,000/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: 1. Fracture of tibial condylar left 2. Type II schatzker left 3. OFIF with 44 T sab done 4. Pain left knee 5. Tenderness and edema left knee 6. Bone grafting also done under anesthesia 13. As per Exhibit C1 disability certificate the petitioner suffered 36% 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 36%, as fixed by the Tribunal. 14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 32 M.A.C.A.No.591/2017 2025:KER:27131 -5- 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 16, 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.8,70,912/-. 15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.30,000/-. being the income for 6 months @Rs.5,000/-. 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 8 months. Therefore, towards 'loss of income' the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.72,000/- (9,000 x 8 months). 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- and towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.3,750/- was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side. 17. The petitioner sustained serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 11 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 'loss of M.A.C.A.No.591/2017 2025:KER:27131 -6- amenities of life' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- and 75,000/- respectively. 18. Towards the head ‘extra nourishment’ no compensation was awarded by the tribunal. Considering the facts, I hold that an amount of Rs.10,000/- is to be awarded under the head of ‘extra nourishment’. 19. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 20. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.11,42,462/-, 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 Transport to hospital 2,000/- 2,000/- 2 Hospitalization for days as per A6 8,800/- 8,800/- 3 Medical expenses 3,750/- 3,750/- 4 Loss of amenities 15,000/- 75,000/- 5 Loss of earnings due to disability as per C1 3,45,600/- 8,70,912/- 6 Pain and sufferings 25,000/- 1,00,000/- 7 Loss of income for 6 months 30,000/- 72,000/- 8 Extra nourishment ----- 10,000/- Total 4,30,150/- 11,42,462/- Enhanced Rs.7,12,312/- M.A.C.A.No.591/2017 2025:KER:27131 -7- 21. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.11,42,462/- (Rupees elevan lakhs forty two thousand four hundred and sixty two only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, excluding interest for a period of 426 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, 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 ADS