2025:KER:22474 MACA NO. 588 OF 2016 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. 588 OF 2016 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 27.02.2015 IN OPMV NO.1498 OF 2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PERUMBAVOOR APPELLANT/APPELLANT: SEBASTIAN AGED 54 YEARS S/O.PAULO, KARIPARAMBU HOUSE, MOOKKANNOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK BY ADVS. SRI.REJI GEORGE SMT.ANUPAMA JOHNY RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT NO.2 M/S.NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. HERO HONDA VERTICAL 101106, BMC HOUSE NI, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI 119001 BY ADV SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR,SC,NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 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:22474 MACA NO. 588 OF 2016 2 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1498/2010 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). 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 10.06.2010. According to the petitioner, on 10.06.2010 at about 7.15 a.m. while he was riding a motorcycle, another motorcycle bearing reg.no.KL/39/A/3136 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle of the petitioner and as a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries. 3. The 1st respondent is the driver cum owner and the 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.52,10,000/- limited to Rs.15,00,000/-. 4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the 2025:KER:22474 MACA NO. 588 OF 2016 3 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.2,99,400/- 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 Sri.P.K. Manoj Kumar, 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 at Rs.5000/-. According to him, the 2025:KER:22474 MACA NO. 588 OF 2016 4 petitioner was working as Operator Grade II Welder, in TELK, getting a monthly salary of Rs.15652/-. However the Tribunal fixed his notional income at Rs.5000/- for the purpose of assessing the loss of disability. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the above procedure adopted by the Tribunal is not correct. 11. In the decision in Akhilesh Chandran vs. Sabu Varghese and others MANU/KE/3976/2024, in the case of a Co-operative Bank employee suffering from 14% disability drawing a monthly salary of Rs.27,954/- the notional income was fixed at 15,000/-. In the decision in Deepa Cyrus vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. MANU/KE/4197/2024, another Single Bench of this Court in the case of a Bank employee suffering from 80% disability drawing a monthly salary of Rs.50,047/- the notional income was fixed at Rs.25,000/-. In the above circumstances, considering the facts, the notional income of the petitioner, who is suffering from 21.6% disability is fixed as 50% of the monthly salary. Since the petitioner was getting a monthly salary of Rs.15652 the notional income is fixed at Rs.7826/- (50% of 15652). 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: (1) Lacerated wound right foot extending to 2nd and third toe 2025:KER:22474 MACA NO. 588 OF 2016 5 (2) Pain back (3) Deformity right thigh (4) Fracture T12 vertebra (5) T11 and T12 subluxation (6) Femur Fracture (7) Dislocation right 2nd toe- amputation of 2nd toe 13. As per Exhibit.X1 disability certificate the petitioner suffered 21.6% 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 21.6%, as fixed by the Tribunal. 14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 49 years. Therefore, 30% 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 13, 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.342816/-. 2025:KER:22474 MACA NO. 588 OF 2016 6 15. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50000/- Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.35000/- 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 very serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 33 days. His 2nd right toe was to be amputated. 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 amenities of life' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.70000/- and Rs.50000/- respectively. 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.5,60,576/-, 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.) 2025:KER:22474 MACA NO. 588 OF 2016 7 1 Loss of earning 78260 78260 2 Transport to hospital 4000 4000 3 Extra nourishment 6250 6250 4 Damage to clothes 1000 1000 5 Attendant charge 8250 8250 6 Pain and suffering 50000 70000 7 Loss of amenities 35000 50000 8 Disability 116640 342816 Total 299400 560576 Enhanced /Reduced Rs. 261176 19. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.5,60,576/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Six only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest at the rate ordered by the Tribunal, from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, excluding interest for a period of 275 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, Pvv JUDGE