MACA NO. 1253 OF 2017 1 2025:KER:24043 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 1253 OF 2017 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 02.07.2016 IN OPMV NO.1324 OF 2015 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE APPELLANT/PETITIONER :- GAFOOR, AGED 44 YEARS S/O MAMMAD KOYA, AGED 44 YEARS,PARAKKAL HOUSE, KANOTT PO,KUNNAMANGALAM VIA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV SRI.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :- 1 RAIHANATH, W/O GAFOOR, AGE NOTKNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,PARAAKKAL HOUSE, KONOTT PO, KUNNAMANGALAM VIA, KOZHIKODE. . 2 NIZAR, S/O HASSAN KUTTY, AGED 30 YEARS,NAMBU KUNNATHARA HOUSE, KANNANKARA PO, CHELANNUR, KOZHIKODE.. 3 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED CITADEL ARCADE, 2ND FLOOR, RC. ROAD,CALICUT.673004. SMT.K.S.SANTHI THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA NO. 1253 OF 2017 2 2025:KER:24043 JUDGMENT The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No,1324 of 2015 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 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.01.2015. According to the petitioner, on 18.01.2015 at about 09.30 a.m., while he was riding pillion on a motorcycle ridden by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner so that the motorcycle fell into a gutter and the petitioner was thrown on to the road. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious 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. 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 A9 and C1. MACA NO. 1253 OF 2017 3 2025:KER:24043 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.2,39,540/- 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.Mohammad Salahudhin, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Smt.K.S.Santhi, 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 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.21,000/- 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. 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 2015 MACA NO. 1253 OF 2017 4 2025:KER:24043 will come to Rs.10,000/-. 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.10,000/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: (1) fracture left femur medial condyl (2) fracture head of left fibula (3) laceration 3x5x5 cm left forehead (4) Abrasion 2x2 right knee (5) contusion right shin (6) Swelling left knee joint (7)Tenderness, restricted movement (8) laceration behind left pinna. 13. As per Exhibit C1 disability certificate the petitioner suffered 20% 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 20%, as fixed by the Tribunal. 14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 44 years. Therefore, 25% 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 14, as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. In the above circumstances, MACA NO. 1253 OF 2017 5 2025:KER:24043 the loss of disability will come to Rs.4,20,000/-. 15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded Rs.30000/- being the income for 5 months @Rs.6000/-. Since the notional income of the petitioner is re-fixed at Rs.10,000/-, towards loss of earning he is entitled to get a sum of Rs.60,000/- (10,000 x 6 months). 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.10,000/- 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 very serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 4 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 amenities of life' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. and Rs.30,000/- respectively. 18. Towards ‘extra nourishment’, no amount was awarded by the Tribunal. Because of the injuries sustained, the percentage of disability suffered and the length of treatment undergone by the petitioner, I award Rs.5,000/- under the head ‘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. MACA NO. 1253 OF 2017 6 2025:KER:24043 20. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.5,76,540/-, 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 30,000 60,000 2 Transport to hospital 2,000 2,000 3 Medical expenses 1,340 1,340 4 Future treatment 5,000 5,000 5 Hospitalisaton 3,200 3,200 6 Pain and sufferings 20,000 50,000 7 Loss of amenities 10,000 30,000 8 Extra nourishment Nil 5,000 9 Compensation for loss of disability 1,68,000 4,20,000 Total 2,39,540 5,76,540 Enhanced to Rs. 3,37,000 21. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3rd respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.5,76,540/- (Rupees Five Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Five Hundred and Forty only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest at the rate ordered by the Tribunal, from the date of the MACA NO. 1253 OF 2017 7 2025:KER:24043 petition till deposit/realisation, excluding interest for a period of 128 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 SMA