2025:KER:24840 MACA NO.3311 OF 2016 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 3311 OF 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.06.2012 IN OPMV NO.278 OF 2010 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KALPETTA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ABDUL KABEER AGED 43 YEARS S/O. BEERAN MOIDEEN, PONNACHAL HOUSE, KUNNAMANGALAMKUNNU, MEPPADI POST, VYTHIRI TALUK. BY ADV SMT.CELINE JOSEPH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.3: THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD BRANCH OFFICE, RAWTHER BUILDING, NEAR PINANGODE ROAD JUNCTION, MAIN ROAD, KALPETTA, POLICY NO. 101601/31/08/02/00009753, PIN-673121. BY ADVS. SRI.AGINOV MATHAPPAN SMT.K.SHERIN MOHAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:24840 MACA NO.3311 OF 2016 2 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.278/2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, 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 28.09.2009. According to the petitioner, on 28.09.2009 at about 1.30 p.m., while he was riding a motorcycle, a jeep bearing reg.no.KL 12A/2575 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit him down and as a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained injuries. 3. The 1st respondent is the driver, the 2nd 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.3,46,000/- limited to Rs.2,00,000/-. 4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the 2025:KER:24840 MACA NO.3311 OF 2016 3 driver of the offending vehicle. 5. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A8 and C1. 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.61040/- 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 Smt. Celine Joseph, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.Aginov Mathappan, 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 businessman, earning Rs.8000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed 2025:KER:24840 MACA NO.3311 OF 2016 4 his monthly income at Rs.3000/-. 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 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 2009 will come to Rs.7000/-. 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.7000/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: • Fracture fibula left. • Fracture scaphoid right. 13. As per Exhibit C1 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, his permanent disability as per Mc-Bride (Body as a whole) formula was assessed as 6% and as per National Institute of Orthopedically Handicapped Scale (NIOH) it was assessed as 20%. Tribunal, however, taken the disability of the petitioner at 6%. In paragraph 12 of the award, the Tribunal has noted that the whole body disability of the petitioner is 6% while 2025:KER:24840 MACA NO.3311 OF 2016 5 the functional disability assessed as per NIOH is 20%. In a proceeding under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, what is to be considered is the functional disability of the victim and as such I am inclined to accept the functional disability of the petitioner at 20% as assessed by the medical board. 14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 40 years. Therefore, 25% 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 15, 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.315000/-. 15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.9000/- being the income for 3 months @Rs.3000/-. 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 income' the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.42000/- (7000 x 6 months). 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.3000/- was awarded and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.1400/- was awarded. According 2025:KER:24840 MACA NO.3311 OF 2016 6 to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side. 17. The petitioner sustained serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 14 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’, 'loss of amenities of life' and 'extra nourishment' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.40000, Rs.25000/- and Rs.2000/- respectively. 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.4,31,400/-, 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 9000 42000 2 Medical and miscellaneous expense 1500 1500 3 Bystander expense 1400 1400 2025:KER:24840 MACA NO.3311 OF 2016 7 4 Transportation expense 1000 1000 5 Extra nourishment 1400 2000 6 Damage to clothing etc 500 500 7 Pain and suffering 10000 40000 8 Permanent disability 30240 315000 9 Loss of amenities and convenience caused 3000 25000 10 Loss of earning power 3000 3000 Total 61040 431400 Enhanced 370360 20. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.4,31,400/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Four Hundred only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, excluding interest for a period of 1476 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 Pvv