MACA NO. 214 OF 2014 1 2025:KER:18595 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 214 OF 2014 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 29.06.2013 IN OPMV NO.1840 OF 2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR APPELLANT/PETITIONER :- 1 P.K.PAUL DIED) S/O.KORA, PADAYATHIL HOUSE, KRARIYELI KARA, KOMBAN P.O., NOW RESIDING AT PRALAYAKAD VIA, KURUPPAMPADY P.O., PERUBAVOOR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM - 683 555. *2 ADDL.APPELLANTS 2 TO 6 ARE IMPLEADED :- MARY PAUL AGED 74 , W/O. P.K. PAUL, PADAYATTIL HOUSE, NEAR PARA, KURUPPAMPADY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT , PIN-683545 3 ELDHO PAUL, AGED 54, S/O. P.K. PAUL, PADAYATTIL HOUSE, NEAR PARA, KURUPPAMPADY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683545 4 SHEENA PAUL, AGED 52, D/O. P.K. PAUL AND W/O. ANIL PAUL PADATH HOUSE, RAMANGARAM P.O., RAYAMANGALAM, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686663 5 SHEEBA PAUL, AGED 50, D/O. P.K. PAUL AND W/O. MONCY ABRAHAM VADAKKEDATHU HOUSE, ANICADU POST MALLAPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA-689585 6 SHEEJA PAUL AGED 46, D/O. P.K. PAUL AND W/O. DILIP MANI ABRAHAM, FLAT NO-01, PALMGROVE APARTMENTS, GEORGE EDEN ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM -682017 MACA NO. 214 OF 2014 2 2025:KER:18595 *(THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED APPELLANT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.APPELLANTS 2 TO 6, AS PER ORDER DATED 12/12/2024 IN IA.1/2024 IN MACA 214/2014) BY ADVS. K.C.ELDHO ANEESH JAMES ANESH PAUL JIJO THOMAS SURAJ.S M.D.BEENA AJAY SANKAR A.S. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :- 1 SHIJU.K.K, AGED 30 YEARS S/O.KURIAN K.V., KANNADAN HOUSE, PANAMKUZHY KARA, KOMBANAD P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM - 683 555 (1ST RESPONDENT IN THE OP(MV) 2 P.V.HASSAN, S/O.VEERAVU, 10/374, PATTARUMADAM, VENGOLA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM - 683 554 (2ND RESPONDENT IN OPMV) 3 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, P.B.NO.6, 1ST FLOOR, SHANTHI PARK, KOLENCHERRY P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM - 682 311. (3RD RESPONDENT IN OPMV) BY ADV SRI.A.R.GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA NO. 214 OF 2014 3 2025:KER:18595 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1840/2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, is the appellant herein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal). During the pendency of the appeal, he died on 18.07.2022 and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional appellants 2 to 6. 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 12.05.2007. According to the petitioner, on 12.05.2007 at about 01.00 p.m., while he was riding a motorcycle, he was knocked down by a bus bearing Registration No.KL-17/B-1555 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries. 3. The 2nd respondent is the driver/ 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 Rs.4,50,000/-. 4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the MACA NO. 214 OF 2014 4 2025:KER:18595 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 oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A10, B1, and X1. 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.2,28,395/- and directed the insurer to pay the same. 7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitione 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.K.C.Eldho, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.A.R.George, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent. 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid 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 a farmer, earning Rs.3,000/- per month and the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at MACA NO. 214 OF 2014 5 2025:KER:18595 Rs.3,000/-. 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 2007 will come to Rs.6,000/-. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.6000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. It was further argued that the notional income cannot be fixed over and above what is claimed. 12. In the decision in Sasidharan Namboothiri and Others v. Rajeev Kesavan and Others [2025 ICO 130], this court had occasion to consider the question whether the notional income of a victim of road traffic accident and found that to award just and reasonable compensation the notional income can be fixed over and above what is claimed in the original petition. 13. Since the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2007 will come to Rs.6,000/-, in order to award just and reasonable compensation, in the light of a dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa (supra), the notional income of the petitioner is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.6,000/-. MACA NO. 214 OF 2014 6 2025:KER:18595 14. In the accident the petitioner sustained lacerated wound below the left knee, Oedema and tenderness of right leg, lacerated wound on the upper eyelid left and lacerated wound occipital region. 15. Ext.X1 disability certificate shows that the petitioner suffered 15% 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 15%, as fixed by the Tribunal. 16. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 60 years. Therefore, there is no scope for any 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 9, 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.97,200/-. 17. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only 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 4 months. Therefore, towards 'loss of income' the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.24,000/- (6,000 x 4 months). MACA NO. 214 OF 2014 7 2025:KER:18595 18. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.12,000/- was awarded and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.1,500/- was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side. 19. The petitioner sustained very serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 24 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 suffering’, 'loss of amenities of life' and 'extra nourishment' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.40,000, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively. 20. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 21. The tribunal has noted in the award that when the matter was taken up for settlement, the petitioner was absent without representation. Therefore, the tribunal held that the petitioner is not entitled to get interest for the award amount from 18.08.2011 till the date of the award. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the above order of the tribunal is MACA NO. 214 OF 2014 8 2025:KER:18595 unsustainable and may be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would submit that since the petitioner did not turn up for settlement, the tribunal was justified in denying the interest for the above period. 22. The only reason given by the tribunal for denying interest to the petitioner is that on the date when the case was posted for settlement, he did not turn up. The above reason given by the tribunal for denying interest is not a reasonable one, and as such, the petitioners will be entitled to get interest for the entire period from the date of petition till realisaton. 23. Therefore, the petitioner/appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.3,32,495/-, 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 5,000 24,000 2 Transport to hospital 1,000 1,000 3 Extra nourishment 1,500 5,000 4 Damage to clothes 500 500 5 Medical expenses 1,36,195 1,36,195 MACA NO. 214 OF 2014 9 2025:KER:18595 6 Pain and sufferings 20,000 40,000 7 Loss of amenities 12,000 25,000 8 Disability 48,600 97,200 9 Bystander expenses 3,600 3,600 Total 2,28,395 3,32,495 Enhanced 1,04,100 24. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3rd respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.3,32,495/- (Rupees Three Lakh Thirty Two Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Five Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. 25. On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the petitioners, excluding court fee payable, if any, without delay, as per rules. Sd/- C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE SMAss