2025:KER:22301 MACA NO.2234 OF 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 2234 OF 2014 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 28.04.2014 IN OPMV NO.257 OF 2011 OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA / I ADDITIONAL MACT, THODUPUZHA APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: SASI N.I. AGED 57 YEARS S/O ITTAYATHI, NADUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR KOLLAPPUZHA TEMPLE, VELLAMTHANAM, UDUMBANNOOR VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV SMT.BINITHA JAMES RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS : 1 NIVIN AGED 29 YEARS S/O JOHNY, KANNAMKULATH HOUSE, VAVALAKKATTU JUNCTION BHAGOM, VELLAMTHANAM, UDUMBANNOOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 595.[DELETED] 2 FR. STEPHEN MATHEW CATHOLIC CHURCH, OMALLOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 647.[DELETED][RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 27.03.2015 IN IA 967/15.] 2025:KER:22301 MACA NO.2234 OF 2014 2 3 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT -685 584. BY ADV SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:22301 MACA NO.2234 OF 2014 3 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.257/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, 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 14.02.2011. According to the petitioner, on 14.02.2011 at about 10.00 a.m., while he was travelling in his scooter, a car bearing reg.no. KL-07-Z-3585 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the scooter and as a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries. 3. The 1st respondent is the driver, 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 limited to Rs.1,50,000/-. 2025:KER:22301 MACA NO.2234 OF 2014 4 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 evidence Exts.A1 to A11. 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.91,918/- rounded to Rs.91920/- 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 Smt. Binitha James, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.P.M.M. Najeeb Khan, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent. 2025:KER:22301 MACA NO.2234 OF 2014 5 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 electrical contractor, earning Rs.10000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.4000/-. 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/-. Since the petitioner could not prove his job or income as claimed in the OP, in the light of a dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa (supra) , his notional income is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.8000/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: 1. Multiple abrasions right shoulder, right side of face, right chin 2025:KER:22301 MACA NO.2234 OF 2014 6 and left knee. 2. C5, C6, C7 disc prolapse. 3. Fracture proximal phalanx right little finger. 4. Neck pain. 5. Mallet finger deformity right little finger. 13. Ext.A7 disability certificate shows that the petitioner suffered 15% permanent physical disability. It was issued by the medical board. The Tribunal, however, scaled down the percentage of disability of the petitioner to 5%, 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 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 15%. 14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 54 years. Therefore, 10% of the monthly income is to be added towards future 2025:KER:22301 MACA NO.2234 OF 2014 7 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 11, 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.174240/-. 15. Towards loss of earnings, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.12000/- being the income for 3 months @Rs.4000/- . 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/- (8000x 5 months). 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.5000/- was awarded, towards 'bystander expenses' Rs.2400/-was awarded and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.2400/- 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 12 days. Because of the injuries sustained, the 2025:KER:22301 MACA NO.2234 OF 2014 8 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', 'bystander expense' and 'extra nourishment' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.40000/-, Rs.25000/-, Rs.3600/- and Rs.5000/- respectively. 18. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 19. Therefore, the petitioner/appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.3,11,558/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: Sl. No. Head of claim Amount awarded by the Tribunal (Rs) Amount modified in appeal (Rs.) 1 Loss of earnings 12000 40000 2 Pain and suffering 20000 40000 3 Loss of amenities 5000 25000 4 Bystander’s expenses 2400 3600 5 Extra nourishment 2400 5000 6 Transportation charges 1000 1000 2025:KER:22301 MACA NO.2234 OF 2014 9 7 Damage to clothing 500 500 8 Medical expenses 22218 22218 9 Disability compensation 26400 174240 Total Rs.91,918/- rounded to Rs.91920 311558 Amount enhanced 2,19,638/- 20. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.3,11,558/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eleven Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Eight 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. 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 Pvv