2025:KER:26539 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2025/23RD PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 2509 OF 2014 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 22.07.2013 IN OPMV NO.3637 OF 2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE. APPELLANT: SIDDIQUE, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.KHADER, AMBALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHOOLAM VAYAL, KUNNAMANGALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SMT.DIVYA B.NAIR SMT.A.MUMTHAZ SRI.R.RETHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: 1 K.S.RAMANARAYANAN, S/O.SUBRAMANIYAN, LAKSHMI NIVAS, P.O.KOTTAKUNNU SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD – 673 592. 2 C.J.VARGHESE, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.SAKARIA YAKKOB, CHERUKARAYIL HOUSE, P.O.KOTTAKUNNU, SULTHAN BATHERY – 673 592. 3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, NOORAMMAL BUILDING, M.A.C.A.No.2509 of 2014 2025:KER:26539 -2- IIND FLOOR, MAIN ROAD, SULTHAN BATHERY – 673 592. SC, UNITED INDIA - SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No.2509 of 2014 2025:KER:26539 -3- J U D G M E N T (Dated this the 14th day of March, 2025) The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.3637/2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode 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 30.01.2002. According to the petitioner, on 30.01.2002 at about 2.30 p.m., while he was riding pillion on a motorcycle, a car bearing Registration No.KL- 12/A-2827 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down and as a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries. 3. The 1st 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.11,53,000/-. 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 M.A.C.A.No.2509 of 2014 2025:KER:26539 -4- documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A11, C1 and X1. 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.2,97,731/- 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.Divya B Nair, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.John Joseph Vettikad, 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 working as driver, earning Rs.5,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.1,500/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. M.A.C.A.No.2509 of 2014 2025:KER:26539 -5- 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 2002 will come to Rs.3,500/-. According to the petitioner, he is a driver by profession getting a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. In order to prove the same, he has produced Ext.A10 copy of driving licence. Since he is a driver by profession, I am inclined to fix the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.4,500/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: Diffuse axonal injury, fracture right femur, fracture both bones of right leg, trachent injury at T4 level, lacerated wound over right leg and right knee and swelling on right thigh and right leg. 13. As per Exhibit.C1 disability certificate the petitioner suffered 65% 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 65%, as fixed by the Tribunal. 14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 20 years. Therefore, 40% of the monthly income is to be added towards future prospects, as held in the decision in National Insurance Co. M.A.C.A.No.2509 of 2014 2025:KER:26539 -6- 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.8,84,520/-. 15. Since the notional income of the petitioner is re-fixed at Rs.4,500, towards loss of earning he is entitled to get a sum of Rs.54,000/- (4,500 x 12 months). 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.25,000/- was awarded, towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.2,500/- was awarded and towards ‘bystander expenses’ Rs.7,000/- 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 very serious injuries in the accident and claims that he was treated as inpatient for 143 days. However, the records produced reveals only the treatment from 30.01.2002 to 30.04.2002. 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', 'extra nourishment' and ‘bystander expenses’ are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-, 75,000/-, 10,000/- and 10,000/- respectively. M.A.C.A.No.2509 of 2014 2025:KER:26539 -7- 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 petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.11,48,151/-, 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 18,000/- 54,000/- 2 Transport to hospital 2,000/- 2,000/- 3 Damage to clothings and other articles 500/- 500/- 4 Extra nourishment 2,500/- 10,000/- 5 Bystander expenses 7,000/- 10,000/- 6 Treatment expenses 12,131/- 12,131/- 7 Pain and sufferings 20,000/- 1,00,000/- 8 Loss of future earning power 2,10,600/- 8,84,520/- 9 Loss of amenities of life 25,000/- 75,000/- Total 2,97,731/- 11,48,151/- Enhanced Rs.8,50,420/- 20. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.11,48,151/- (Rupees elevan lakhs forty eight thousand one hundred and fifty one only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ M.A.C.A.No.2509 of 2014 2025:KER:26539 -8- 8% per annum, from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, excluding interest for a period of 148 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