MACA No.1172 of 2016 1 2025:KER:24390 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. 1172 OF 2016 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 29.11.2012 IN OP(MV) NO.425 OF 2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: PRASANNA AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. PRADEEP, PRINCE BHAVAN,SNG NAGAR-18, MULLUVILA CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.PRATHEESH.P SMT.RENY ANTO RESPONDENT/ 2ND RESPONDENT : THE DIVISIOANL MANGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., KOLLAM-691 001. BY ADV SRI.E.M.JOSEPH THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA No.1172 of 2016 2 2025:KER:24390 J U D G M E N T Dated this the 18th day of March, 2025 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 425 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam, 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 07.03.2010. According to the petitioner, on 07.03.2010 at about 3 p.m., while she was riding pillion on the motorcycle of her brother through Palimukku – Eravipuram public road, another motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL- 02/Z 8161 ridden by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motorcycle, in which the petitioner was riding pillion. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries. 3. The 1st respondent is the owner cum driver 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 MACA No.1172 of 2016 3 2025:KER:24390 O.P. is Rs.4,00,000/- 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 oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A9. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. 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.94,120/- 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. Pratheesh P., the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri. E.M. Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. MACA No.1172 of 2016 4 2025:KER:24390 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 Factory worker, earning Rs.3000/- per month, and the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.3000/-. 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 2010 will come to Rs7,500/-. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.7,500/-. 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.7,500/-, 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/-. MACA No.1172 of 2016 5 2025:KER:24390 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: “Left femur - Suprapatellar region anterior aspect (3 cm above patella) broken bone protruded outside, deformity left leg middle 1/3rd , selling of the right infra orbital region”. 13. As per Exhibit A9 disability certificate, the petitioner suffered 7% permanent physical disability. 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 7%, as fixed by the Tribunal. 14. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would argue that since the percentage of disability is only 7%, future prospects may not be allowed. The tribunal has found as per Ext.A9 that the petitioner has sustained 7% permanent physical disability and the said finding is not under challenge. If the disability is permanent, it’s impact on the petitioner, who is a labourer, will also be permanent. Since as per Ext.A9 it is revealed that the petitioner suffered 7% permanent MACA No.1172 of 2016 6 2025:KER:24390 disability, the same will adversely affect his earning capacity to that much extent, including future prospects. Therefore, I find no merits in the above argument advanced by the learned counsel. 15. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 34 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 16, 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.1,41,120/- (10500 x 12 x 16 x 7%). 16. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs..12,000/- being the income for 4 months @Rs.3000/- . 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/- (7500x 6 months). 17. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000. Towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.2400/- was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the MACA No.1172 of 2016 7 2025:KER:24390 compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' no amount was awarded. 18. The petitioner sustained serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 17 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.50,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively. Towards 'loss of amenities of life', Rs.30,000/- is awarded. 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. 20. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.2,78,520/-, 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 income 12,000 45,000 2 Bystanders expenses 3,400 3,400 3 Transport to hospital 4,000 4,000 MACA No.1172 of 2016 8 2025:KER:24390 4 Medical expenses 2,000 2,000 5 Extra nourishment 2,400 3,000 6 Pain and sufferings 30,000 50,000 7 Loss of permanent disability 40,320 1,41,120 8 Loss of amenities - 30,000 Total 94,120/- 2,78,520/- Enhanced Rs.1,84,400/- 21. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the Respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.2,78,520/- (Rupees Two lakh seventy eight thousand five hundred and twenty only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest at the rate of 8%, from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, excluding interest for a period of 1132 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 S.M.K.