2025:KER:25623 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2025/22ND PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 1303 OF 2014 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 21.11.2013 IN OPMV NO.541 OF 2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL PALA APPELLANT: MADHU KRISHNAN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, AMBIKA COTTAGE, CHOVVA .O., KANNUR – 670 006. BY ADVS. SRI.C.M.TOMY SRI.ARUN JOSE THOMAS SRI.MATHEW SKARIA RESPONDENTS: 1 VIJAYAN T.N, THEKKEL HOUSE, PERIYARAMANGALAM, KIDANGOOR - 686 572. 2 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MATTEETHARA BUILDING, BAKER JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. BY ADV SRI.N.S.NAJEEB THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No.1303 of 2014 2025:KER:25623 -2- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 13th day of March, 2025 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.541/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala 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 25.12.2010. According to the petitioner, on 25.12.2010 at about 1 p.m., while he was riding a motorcycle, an autorickshaw bearing Registration No.Kl-5/K-7580 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the petitioner fell down and sustained serious injuries. 3. The 1st respondent is the owner cum driver and, 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.8,65,500/- limited to Rs.6,00,000/-. 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 documentary M.A.C.A.No.1303 of 2014 2025:KER:25623 -3- evidence Exts.A1 to A18. 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.2,97,650/- 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.C.M.Tomy, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.N.S.Najeeb, 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. According to him, the petitioner was studying as a nursing student at the time of the accident and even then the Tribunal fixed his monthly income only at Rs.1,500/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. M.A.C.A.No.1303 of 2014 2025:KER:25623 -4- 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 Rs.7,000/-. The learned counsel could not state whether the petitioner was studying in Bsc. nursing course or any other course. No documents are also produced to prove the same. In the above circumstances, I am inclined to fix his notional income at Rs.8,000/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: Fracture both bones of the right forearm, olecranon fracture of right elbow, blunt trauma abdomen, contusion right chest, grade IV laceration of liver and multiple abrasion of right forehead, forearm and right elbow. 13. Ext.A12 disability certificate shows that the petitioner suffered 13% permanent physical disability. The Tribunal, however, scaled down the percentage of disability of the petitioner to 10%, without assigning valid and cogent reasons. The law is settled that, if the Tribunal is not satisfied with the disability certificate produced by the petitioner, the remedy is to refer him to a medical board or higher Authority.(See Manikantan G. v. Janardhanan Nair and Others, 2021 (5)KHC 305). Having not done so, the Tribunal was not justified in scaling down the percentage of disability M.A.C.A.No.1303 of 2014 2025:KER:25623 -5- from what is shown in the disability certificate. I do find any grounds to disbelieve the said disability and as such the permanent physical disability of the petitioner is fixed as 13%. 14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 21 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 18, 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.3,14,496/-. 15. Towards loss of study, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.5000/-. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained and the percentage of disability suffered by the petitioner, the petitioner is awarded an amount of Rs.24,000/- (8,000 x 3) towards the head of ‘loss of study’. 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/-. Towards 'bystander expenses' Rs.5,000/- was awarded and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.3,000/- 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 serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 28 days. Because of the injuries sustained, the percentage of disability suffered and the length M.A.C.A.No.1303 of 2014 2025:KER:25623 -6- of treatment undergone by the petitioner, I hold that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the heads ‘pain and sufferings’, 'bystander expenses' and 'extra nourishment' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.50,000/-, 15,000/- and 6,000/- respectively. 18. Towards the head of ‘loss of amenities’, no amount has been awarded by the tribunal. Considering the nature of the injuries, I am inclined to grant an amount of Rs.30,000/- under the head of ‘loss of amenities’. 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 petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.6,56,746/-, 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 Transport to hospital 5,000/- 5,000/- 2 Extra nourishment 3,000/- 6,000/- 3 Treatment expenses 1,87,250/- 1,87,250/- 4 Bystander expenses 5,000/- 15,000/- Part II 5 Pain and sufferings 35,000/- 50,000/- 6 Permanent disability 32,400/- 3,14,496/- M.A.C.A.No.1303 of 2014 2025:KER:25623 -7- 7 Loss of amenities ---- 30,000/- 8 Loss of study 5,000/- 24,000/- 9 Future treatment expenses 25,000/- 25,000/- Total 2,97,650/- 6,56,746/- Enhanced Rs.3,59,096/- 21. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.6,56,746/- (Rupees six lakhs fifty six thousand seven hundred and forty six 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. 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 ADS