MACA NO. 1868 OF 2015 1 2025:KER:19219 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. 1868 OF 2015 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 19.02.2015 IN OPMV NO.1106 OF 2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PERUMBAVOOR APPELLANT/PETITIONER :- SHANMUGHAM, AGED 62 YEARS S/O.RAMASAMY, KONAMOOLAI, SATHYAMANGALAM, ERODE, TAMIL NADU BY ADVS. SRI.REJI GEORGE SMT.ANUPAMA JOHNY RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.3 :- RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD 1ST & 2ND FLOOR, VISHNU BUILDINGS, KP VALLON ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN 20 BY ADV SRI.K.B.RAMANAND THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA NO. 1868 OF 2015 2 2025:KER:19219 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1106/2010 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 26.04.2010. According to the petitioner, on 26.04.2010 at about 08.00 p.m., while he was about to cross the road, a car bearing Registration No.KL-41-8811 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries. 3. The 1st respondent is the owner and the 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.4,02,000/- limited to Rs.1,97,500/-. 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 MACA NO. 1868 OF 2015 3 2025:KER:19219 of the offending vehicle. 5. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A10 and B1. 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.1,56,336/- and directed the insurer to pay 90% of the same, which comes to Rs.1,40,702/-. 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.K.B.Ramanand, 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 working as a driver, earning Rs.6,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.4,500/-. 11. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the MACA NO. 1868 OF 2015 4 2025:KER:19219 decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2010 will come to Rs.7,500/-. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.7500/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. Since the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2010 will come to Rs.7500/-, 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.7500/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: (1) Abrasions on the forehead, occipital region, both hands, left knee, left leg (2) Contusion on right shoulder, left leg. (3) Comminuted fractures of neckof right humerus of both bones left leg. (4) Right frontal haemorrhagic contusion. (5) Small subdural haematoma right side, fractures of right parietal bone of right zygoma. (6) Interhemispheric SDH right frontallobe of brain with bifrontal haemmorrhagic contusion. 13. He was treated as inpatient for 10 days. Though the petitioner sustained serious injuries including 5 fractures, he has not produced any disability certificate. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation on the head 'loss of disability'. 14. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.13,500/- MACA NO. 1868 OF 2015 5 2025:KER:19219 being the income for 3 months @Rs.4,500/-. 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 6 months. Therefore, towards 'loss of income' the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.45,000/- (7,500 x 6 months). 15. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.60,000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.40,000/- was awarded and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.3,750/- 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 10 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’, 'loss of amenities of life' and 'extra nourishment' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.75,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.5,000/- 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 petitioner/appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.2,14,086/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in MACA NO. 1868 OF 2015 6 2025:KER:19219 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 13,500 45,000 2 Transportation to hospital 5,000 5,000 3 Extra nourishment 3,750 5,000 4 Attendance charges 3,500 3,500 5 Treatment expenses 16,586 16,586 6 Pain and sufferings 60,000 75,000 7 Loss of amenities 40,000 50,000 8 Damage to clothes 1,000 1,000 9 Future treatment 10,000 10,000 10 Disfiguration 3,000 3,000 Total 1,56,336 2,14,086 Enhanced amount 57,750 19. Ext.A5 final report was filed by the police against the 2nd respondent and as such the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent. However, the Tribunal relying upon the scene mahazar found 10% contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. The law is well settled that MACA NO. 1868 OF 2015 7 2025:KER:19219 charge sheet filed by the police, after investigation in the case registered in respect of the accident, is prima facie proof of negligence and as such, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal was not justified in relying upon the scene mahazar to find contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the above finding of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 20. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3rd respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.2,14,086/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fourteen Thousand Eighty 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, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. (enhanced compensation will carry interest @8%). 21. 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