MACA NO. 2671 OF 2014 1 2025:KER:22548 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 2671 OF 2014 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 27.03.2013 IN OPMV NO.447 OF 2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER :- SHANAVAZ SHAJAHAN @ SHANAVAZ, AGED 27 YEARS S/O.SHAJAHAN, RESIDING AT MANANGATTIL HOUSE, KOOTTICKAL P.O., VETTICKANAM, MUNDAKAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.A.R.NIMOD RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :- 1 JINTIMON C.G. @ JINU S/O.GOPINATHAN @ GOPI, RESIDING AT CHARUVILAYILHOUSE, KOOTICKAL P.O., MUNDAKAYAM, PIN : 686 514. 2 ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, D1, II FLOOR, AMRITHA TOWERS, K.P.C.C.JUNCTION, OPPOSITE MAHARAJA GROUNDS, M.G.ROAD,KOCHI - 682 011. BY ADVS. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR. SMT.PREETHY R. NAIR THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA NO. 2671 OF 2014 2 2025:KER:22548 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.447 of 2010 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 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.01.2010. According to the petitioner, on 30.01.2010 at about 09.45 p.m., while he was travelling in a car driven by the 1st respondent, the car collided with a school bus bearing Registration No.KL-5/M 1398. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries. 3. The 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 car. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.5,03,245/- limited to Rs.5,00,000/- 4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the car. 5. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence MACA NO. 2671 OF 2014 3 2025:KER:22548 Exts.A1 to A18. 6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the car, awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,28,079/- 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.T.C.Suresh Menon, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.P.Jacob Mathew, 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 helper in a company at Sharja in UAE, earning Rs.27,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.11,000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. 11. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the notional income of the petitioner fixed by the tribunal at Rs.11,000/- is on the lower side. MACA NO. 2671 OF 2014 4 2025:KER:22548 In the award, the tribunal found that from the employment abroad, the petitioner was getting a sum equal to Indian rupee 22,956/- and thereafter, fixed the notional income at Rs.11,000/-.Since the salary received by the petitioner from employment abroad is Rs.22,956/-, the tribunal ought to have fixed 50% of the same as the notional income, which will come to around Rs.11,500/-. Therefore, his notional income is fixed at Rs.11,500/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries:- (1) Fracture mandible (2) Depressed fracture frontal bone and fronto Naso ethmoid complex and lacerated wound on right eyelid (3) Fracture cribriform plate, glabella (4) Fracture maxilla and mid palative split.(5) Fracture lateral wall of orbit and Lefort III fracture of maxilla (6) Fracture nasal bone. 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'. According to the petitioner, immediately after the accident, he had to go abroad to join his duty, and hence, he could not submit himself for examination by a medical board. Though, during the pendency of the appeal I.A.No.3095 of 2014 was filed with a prayer to examine the petitioner before the medical board, the said application was not pressed and dismissed by this Court. According to the learned counsel, since he was employed abroad, he could not appear before the Medical Board at the time when he was likely to be directed to appear for examination. MACA NO. 2671 OF 2014 5 2025:KER:22548 14. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.38,500/- being the income for 31/2 months @Rs.11,000/-. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, including 6 fractures, I hold that the petitioner might have lost income at least for a period of 6 months. Therefore, towards 'loss of income', the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.69,000/- (11,500 x 6 months). 15. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.20,000/- was awarded and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.5,000/- 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 11 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’, and 'loss of amenities of life' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.75,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively. 17. Towards ‘bystander expense’ the tribunal has awarded only Rs.2,200/- , which is enhanced to Rs.3,300/-. 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. MACA NO. 2671 OF 2014 6 2025:KER:22548 19. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.3,39,679/-, 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 38,500 69,000 2 Transport to hospital 3,000 3,000 3 Extra nourishment 5,000 5,000 4 Damage to clothing 1,000 1,000 5 Treatment expenses 1,33,379 1,33,379 6 Bystander expenses 2,200 3,300 7 Pain and sufferings 25,000 75,000 8 Loss of amenities 20,000 50,000 Total 2,28,079 3,39,679 Enhanced amount Rs. 1,11,600 20. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 2nd respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.3,39,679/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Nine 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 444 days, the MACA NO. 2671 OF 2014 7 2025:KER:22548 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 SMA