2025:KER:23512 MACA NO.1958 OF 2014 1 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. 1958 OF 2014 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 16.01.2014 IN OPMV NO.197 OF 2012 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL PALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ANANTHU MANILAL S/O.MANILAL, KARIMPANIL HOUSE, (SREENILAYAM), KANGAZHA VILLAGE, KADAYANIKKADU P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, 686 541, (DATE OF BIRTH 05.05.1994 - MAJORITY DECLARED) BY ADVS. SRI.C.M.TOMY SRI.MATHEW SKARIA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 SREEKANDAN NAIR S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, CHAMBAKKARA MOTORS, CHAMBAKKARA P., KARUKACHAL, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM 686 540. 2 SHIJU SIMON S/O.K.T.SIMON, RAMANALIL HOUSE, VELIYARA P.O, AYROOR, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 612. 3 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, PALA, PIN 686 575. 2025:KER:23512 MACA NO.1958 OF 2014 2 BY ADV P.K.BABU THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:23512 MACA NO.1958 OF 2014 3 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.197/2012 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 09.08.2011. According to the petitioner, on 09.08.2011 at about 1.00 p.m., while the petitioner was travelling in a stage carriage bus bearing reg.no. KL-5/S-5007 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, that the bus overturned and fell into a river and thereby he sustained injuries. 3. The 1st respondent is the owner , the 2nd respondent is the driver 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.4,48,700/- limited to Rs.2,50,000/-. 4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the 2025:KER:23512 MACA NO.1958 OF 2014 4 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 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.96,700/- 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.P.K. Babu, 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 a 2025:KER:23512 MACA NO.1958 OF 2014 5 student and Agricultural worker, earning Rs.3000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his income at Rs.15000/- per year. 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 2011 will come to Rs.8000/-. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.8000/-. 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 2011 will come to Rs.8000/-, 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.8000/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: • Fracture of fibula (left), fracture of tibia (left), fracture of ulna (right), abrasions left foot and lacerated wound over the scalp 3 x 1 cm. 2025:KER:23512 MACA NO.1958 OF 2014 6 13. As per Exhibit A8 disability certificate the petitioner suffered 8% 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 8%, as fixed by the Tribunal. 14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 17 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.1,93,536/-. 15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has not awarded any amount. 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 5 months. Therefore, towards 'loss of income' the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.40000/- (8000 x 5 months). 2025:KER:23512 MACA NO.1958 OF 2014 7 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.1000/- 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 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’, and 'extra nourishment' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.50000, and Rs.3000/- respectively. 18. Towards ‘loss of amenities’, and ‘Damage to clothing’ the tribunal has not awarded any amount. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Rs.30000/- and Rs.700/- respectively are awarded on the aforesaid heads. 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 2025:KER:23512 MACA NO.1958 OF 2014 8 compensation of Rs.3,64,936/-, 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 Not entitled 40000 2 Transport to hospital 1000 1000 3 Extra nourishment 1000 3000 4 Damage to clothing Not entitled 700 5 Treatment expense 45500 45500 6 Bystander expense 1200 1200 7 Pain and suffering 30000 50000 8 Loss of disability 18000 193536 9 Loss of amenities Not entitled 30000 Total 96700 364936 Enhanced /Reduced Rs. 268236 21. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.3,64,936/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Six 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, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the 2025:KER:23512 MACA NO.1958 OF 2014 9 entire amount to the petitioner, excluding court fee payable, if any, without delay, as per rules. Sd/- C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE Pvv