MACA NO. 2865 OF 2014 1 2025:KER:24057 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 2865 OF 2014 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 25.08.2012 IN OPMV NO.1774 OF 2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA APPELLANT/PETITIONER :- M.S.SHAMNAD, AGED 29 YEARS S/O.MOHAMMED SHAFFI, SHAMNAD MANZHIL ,CHADAYAMANGALAM P O, KOLLAM DISTRICT , KERALA STATE, PRESENT PERMANENT ADDRESS, M S SHAMNAD, C/O.KASSIM, THEEVETTIYIL HOUSE, THONDANKULANGARA WARD ALAPPUZHA BY ADVS. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA RESPONDENT/S: 1 K.K.UUNIKRISHNAN NAIR KOODATHINKAL HOUSEM ERAVINALLOOR P O, PUTHUPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DIST, PIN-686011 2 JOMON THOMAS S/O.THOMAS, VADAKKUZHIL VEEDU,PUNNATHURKARA, AYARKUNNAM P O, AYARKUNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DIST, PIN-686564 3 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV DEEPA GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA NO. 2865 OF 2014 2 2025:KER:24057 JUDGMENT The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1774 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, 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 30.03.2006. According to the petitioner, on 30.03.2006 at about 03.15 p.m., while he was riding a motorcycle, he was hit down by a jeep bearing Registration No.KL-I/7230 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of the accident, the petitioner fell down and 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.6,00,000/-. 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. MACA NO. 2865 OF 2014 3 2025:KER:24057 5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to 27. 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.1,05,820/- 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.A.T.Anilkumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Smt.Deepa George, 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 a B.Tech Final year student in Cochin University of Science and Technology, and in spite of that, the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.5,500/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. MACA NO. 2865 OF 2014 4 2025:KER:24057 11. Ext.A25 series are the mark lists of the petitioner as well as his B.Tech Degree Certificate, which shows that he passed B.Tech with first class in May 2006. In the decision in Ramakrishna Pillai K and others v. New India Assurance Company Limited [2015 (3) KLJ 750], this Court has fixed the notional income of a B.Tech 4th Semester student involved in an accident of the year 2006 at Rs.12,000/-. In the decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Fathima Suhara [Manu/KE 1087/2016], the notional income of a 2nd year Engineering student involved in an accident in the year 2005 was fixed by this Court at Rs.12,000/-. In the above circumstance, considering the fact that the petitioner was a final year B.Tech student in the year 2006 and he passed B.Tech in May 2006, I hold that the notional income of the petitioner can be fixed at Rs.12,000/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: (1) lacerated wound left thigh 6x2 cms (2) lacerated wound penis 5x0.2 cms (3) lacerated wound chin 3x2 cms (4) lacerated wound left leg knee 4x2 cms (5) fracture dislocation radius – ulna right wrist (6) fracture bimalleolar right ankle. 13. As per Exhibit 22 disability certificate issued by Assistant Professor, Orthopedics at Medical College, Alappuzha, his permanent physical disability was assessed as 15%. However, the Tribunal has not accepted the same and at the same time awarded a consolidated sum of Rs.25,000/- on the head MACA NO. 2865 OF 2014 5 2025:KER:24057 compensation for disability. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the Tribunal ought to have accepted the percentage of disability assessed as per Ext.A22 and if the Tribunal was not satisfied with the same, the petitioner ought to have been referred to a Medical Board. In the instant case, Ext.A22 was issued by the Assistant Professor in Orthopedics at Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha. In the disability certificate, he has noted that the petitioner underwent major surgery on his right wrist and there is 1 cm shortening of right radius due to malunion of fracture radius with 10% angulation. It was in the above context, he has assessed 8% disability for right radius and 7% disability for the fracture to the right ankle. He has assessed the disability as per the Mcc Bride’s scale. In the above circumstance, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the Tribunal was not satisfied with the disability certificate produced, the petitioner ought to have been referred him to a Medical Board. Having not done so, the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting Ext.A22. Therefore, I am inclined to accept the permanent physical disability of the petitioner at 15%, as assessed in Ext.A22. 15. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 21 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) MACA NO. 2865 OF 2014 6 2025:KER:24057 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.5,44,320/-. 16. Towards loss of study, the tribunal has not awarded any amount. The petitioner sustained very serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 10 days. Because of the injuries sustained, the percentage of disability suffered and the length of treatment undergone by the petitioner, I hold that the, the petitioner might have lost study at least for a period of 3 months. Therefore, towards 'loss of study', the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.36,000/- (12,000x 3 months). 17. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-. Towards ‘extra nourishment’ Rs.1,000/- and towards 'bystander expenses' Rs.500/- was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side. 18. The petitioner sustained serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 10 days. 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’, 'extra nourishment' and ‘bystander expenses’ are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.40,000/-, Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- MACA NO. 2865 OF 2014 7 2025:KER:24057 respectively. 19. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 20. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.6,84,640/-, 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 Medical bills 27,970 27,970 2 Transportation 1,000 1,000 3 Bystander 500 2,000 4 Extra nourishment 1,000 3,000 5 Damage to clothing 350 350 6 Compensation for disability 25,000 5,44,320 7 Compensation for pain and sufferings 20,000 40,000 8 Compensation for loss of amenities 30,000 30,000 9 Loss of study Nil 36,000 Total 1,05,820 6,84,640 Enhanced to Rs. 5,78,820 MACA NO. 2865 OF 2014 8 2025:KER:24057 21. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3rd respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.6,84,640/- (Rupees Six Lakh Eighty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Forty 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 667 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 SMA