2025:KER:28351 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2025/29TH PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 2278 OF 2014 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 09.04.2014 IN OPMV NO.1023 OF 2012 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - VII, ERNAKULAM / III ADDITIONAL MACT, ERNAKULAM. APPELLANT: JOHNS MANIKANDAN, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.PANDIAN, KUNNUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALKOONTHAL, KARADIVALAVU, NEDUMKANDAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.ANILA PETER SMT.C.PRABITHA SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.J.VIVEK GEORGE RESPONDENTS: 1 PRIYADARSANAN, S/O.PONNAPPAN ACHARI, 536 (11/589), ANANTHANAYYATHU PUTHENVEEDU, EDAMUKAL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 321. 2 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE, OPP. TO NORTH RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 018. BY ADV SMT.REKHA NAIR M.A.C.A.No.2278 of 2014 2025:KER:28351 -2- THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No.2278 of 2014 2025:KER:28351 -3- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 20th day of March, 2025 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1023/2012 on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Ernakulam 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 10.03.2012. According to the petitioner, on 10.03.2012 at about 10.10 p.m., while he was walking along the eastern side of the M.G.Road, Ernakulam, a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-25/B-8606, ridden by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, knocked him down and as a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained 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.4,03,000 claim is limited to Rs.3,00,000/-. 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 documentary M.A.C.A.No.2278 of 2014 2025:KER:28351 -4- 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.1,62,000/- 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.Anil S Raj, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Smt.Rekha Nair, 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 working as a Depot Manager, earning Rs.10,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.5,000/-. 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 M.A.C.A.No.2278 of 2014 2025:KER:28351 -5- 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 2012 will come to Rs.8,500/-. 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.8,500/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained comminuted fracture both bones mld 3rd left leg with displacement, contusion with oedema and tenderness left leg and puncture wound on the left leg. 13. In this case the petitioner has not produced any disability certificate and as such the petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation on the head 'loss of disability'. 14. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.15,000/- being the income for 3 months @Rs.5,000/-. 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 5 months. Therefore, towards 'loss of income' the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.42,500/- (8,500 x 5 months). 15. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.6,000/- M.A.C.A.No.2278 of 2014 2025:KER:28351 -6- was awarded, towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.2,000/- was awarded and towards 'transportation' Rs.1,000/- was awarded. 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 14 days. Because of the injuries sustained 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', 'extra nourishment' and 'transportation' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.50,000/-, 30,000/-, 3,000/- and 3,000/- 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.2,26,500/-, 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 15,000/- 42,500/- 2 Transportation 1,000/- 3,000/- 3 Extra nourishment 2,000/- 3,000/- 4 Damage to clothes and articles 1,000/- 1,000/- M.A.C.A.No.2278 of 2014 2025:KER:28351 -7- 5 Bystander expenses 5,000/- 5,000/- 6 Medical expenses 92,000/- 92,000/- 7 Compensation for pain and sufferings 40,000/- 50,000/- 8 compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life 6,000/- 30,000/- Total 1,62,000/- 2,26,500/- Enhanced Rs.64,500/- 19. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.2,26,500/- (Rupees two lakhs twenty six thousand and five hundred only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. (Enhanced compensation will carry interest @8%) 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