2025:KER:25728 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. 1586 OF 2014 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 26.06.2013 IN OPMV NO.385 OF 2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA. APPELLANT: MARY SIVARAMAN NAIR, W/O.SIVARAMAN NAIR, KUNNEL HOUSE, VELLILAPPILLY KARA, VELLILAPPILLY VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL) SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT: THE MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, JYOTHI SUPER BAZAR, THODUPUZHA, KERALA – 685 584. BY ADV SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW 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.1586 of 2014 2025:KER:25728 -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.385/2011 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 4.30 p.m., while he was riding pillion on a motorcycle, a mahindra jeep bearing Registration No.KRO-4271 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the motorcycle and as a result of the accident, the petitioner fell down and sustained serious injuries. 3. The 2nd 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. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.2,64,000/- limited to Rs.2,50,000/-. 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. M.A.C.A.No.1586 of 2014 2025:KER:25728 -3- 5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A15. 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.70,450/- rounded to Rs.70,500/- 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.Thomas Abraham (Nilackappillil), the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.P.Jacob Mathew, 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 her, the petitioner was running a tea shop, earning Rs.6,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.4,000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is M.A.C.A.No.1586 of 2014 2025:KER:25728 -4- 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 Rs.7,500/-. 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.7,500/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: Subarachnoid haemorrhage left frontal contusion and fracture of frontal bone. In Ext.A9 C.T scan report which showed superior wall linear and comminuted fractures with involvement of ethmoidal and frontal sinuses with haemosinus. 13. In the impugned award, the tribunal stated that the petitioner had not produced any disability certificate before the tribunal. However, the learned counsel has produced a certified copy of the disability certificate issued by the Superintendent Medical College M.A.C.A.No.1586 of 2014 2025:KER:25728 -5- Hospital, Kottayam, issued by the tribunal itself. At the time of examination, the petitioner as PW1, also deposed that she appeared before the Medical Board and the disability certificate was produced. Since, the learned counsel has produced a certified copy of the disability certificate issued by the tribunal itself, I am inclined to accept the same in which the permanent physical disability of the petitioner is known as 8%. I do not find any grounds to disbelieve the same as it is issued by the Medical Board. 14. Since, on the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 65 years, there is no scope for any future prospects and the multiplier to be applied is 7, 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.50,400/-. 15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.16,000/- being the income for 4 months @Rs.4,000/-. 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.20,000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.10,000/- was awarded and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.1,000/- was awarded. M.A.C.A.No.1586 of 2014 2025:KER:25728 -6- According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side. 16. The petitioner sustained serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 6 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.40,000/-, 25,000/- and 2,000/- 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 petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.1,85,850/-, 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 16,000/- 45,000/- 2 Transport to hospital 2,000/- 2,000/- 3 Extra nourishment 1,000/- 2,000/- 4 Hospital expenses 20,250/- 20,250/- 5 Bystander’s expenses 1,200/- 1,200/- M.A.C.A.No.1586 of 2014 2025:KER:25728 -7- Part II 6 Pain and sufferings 20,000/- 40,000/- 7 Disability ---- 50,400/- 8 Loss of amenities 10,000/- 25,000/- Total 70,450/- (rounded to Rs,70,500/-) 1,85,850/- Enhanced Rs.1,15,350/- 19. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.1,85,850/- (Rupees one lakhs eighty five thousand eight hundred and fifty only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, excluding interest for a period of 232 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 ADS