MACA 2597/2014 1 2025:KER:28960 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 MACA NO. 2597 OF 2014 OP(MV).586/2007 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA APPELLANT/PETITIONER OOMMEN MATHAI PULICHAMMOOTTIL HOUSE, NEDUMPURATHUMALA, ERAVIPEROOR P.O., ERAVIPEROOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA. BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.KOSHY SRI.ABE RAJAN SRI.SABU I.KOSHY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 1 JOHN V.S. S/O.SAMMUEL, VALIYAPARAMPIL HOUSE, PADINJATTU OTHERA P.O., KUTTOOR, THIRUVALLA - 689 111. 2 NELSON SAMUEL MARUTHIKKOTTU KIZHAKKEKARA, PUTHEN VEEDU, KODUMON P.O., ADOOR, PIN: 691 555. 3 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THIRUVALLA, PIN: 689 111. BY SMT.K.S.SANTHI-SC ADV GEORGE A.CHERIAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA 2597/2014 2 2025:KER:28960 JUDGMENT Dated : 2nd April, 2025 The petitioner in OP(MV).586/2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta is the appellant. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal). 2. According to the petitioner on 5.10.2006 at about 4.00 p.m while he was walking through the side of Kottankudi – Keezhvaipur road, a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL/03-P/2576 ridden by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down as a result of which he sustained injuries. 3. The 2nd respondent is the owner and the 3rd respondent is an insurer of the motorccle. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.13,30,250/- limited to Rs.550250/- 4. The evidence in the case consists of Exts.A1 toA10. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. 5. 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.1,77,859/- and directed the insurer to pay the same. 6. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this appeal. MACA 2597/2014 3 2025:KER:28960 7. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 8. Heard Sri.T.K.Koshy, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Smt.K.S.Santhi, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent. 9. 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 Welder, earning Rs.6000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.3500/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. 10. 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 2006 will come to Rs.5500./-. 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.5500/-. 11. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: “Compound fracture on left ankle and lacerted injury on left foot. “ 12. The petitioner was treated as inpatient for a total period of 37 days. As per Ext.A9 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, his permanent physical disability MACA 2597/2014 4 2025:KER:28960 was assessed as 14%. However, the Tribunal has scaled down the percentage of disability 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 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 14%. 13. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 28 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 17 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.2,19,912/- 14. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,500/- being the notional income for a period of three months at the rate of Rs.3500/- . 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 earning' the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.33000/- (5500 x 6). 15. Towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/-. Towards loss of amenities Rs.15,000/-, towards extra nourishment Rs.3000/- and towards bystander expense Rs.3000/- were awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the above heads are on the lower side. MACA 2597/2014 5 2025:KER:28960 16. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the percentage of disability suffered and the period of treatment undergone by him, I hold that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the above heads are on the lower side. Therefore, the compensation on the heads pain and suffering, loss of amenities, extra nourishment and bystander expense are enhanced to Rs.40,000/-, 25,000/-, Rs.5000 and Rs.7400/- ( 37 x 200) 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 petitioner/appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.380271/- 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 earnings 10500 33000 2 Transport to hospital 2500 2500 3 Extra nourishment 3000 5000 4 Damage to clothing 500 500 5 Medical expenses 46959 46959 6 Bystander's expenses 3000 7400 7 Pain and sufferings 25000 40000 8 Compensation for loss of earning capacity(Disability) 71400 219912 9 Loss of amenities & enjoyment in life 15000 25000 Total 1,77,859 380271 Amount enhanced 202412 MACA 2597/2014 6 2025:KER:28960 19. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.380271/- (Rupees three lakh eighty thousand two hundred and seventy one 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 181 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 Mrcs/2.4.25