2025:KER:23119 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 7TH 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 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 2025:KER:23119 J U D G M E N T Dated this the 07th 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 2nd 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 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 3rd respondent. MACA No.271/2016 5 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 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 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 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. 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 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