MACA No.2880 of 2014 1 2025:KER:22552 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 2880 OF 2014 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 22.06.2012 IN OP(MV) NO.1759 OF 2008 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: P.V. BINU S/O.VARGHESE, PERUMBRAKUNNEL, KANNUKUZHY KAVALA BHAGOM, LAKKATTOOR P.O., KOOROPPADA. BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENT S / RESPONDENT S: 1 P.J. MANI KOTTAPURAM, VILANGUMPADI BHAGOM, NJALIKUZHY P.O., VAKATHANAM 686 538. 2 RAHUL TOM KONDODICKAL, VADAVATHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 010. 3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. KOTTAYAM 686 001. BY ADV SMT. P.LISSY JOSE – STANDING COUNSEL THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA No.2880 of 2014 2 2025:KER:22552 J U D G M E N T Dated this the 17th day of March, 2025 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1759 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam 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 14.01.2008. According to the petitioner, on 14.01.2008 at about 8.15 p.m., while the petitioner was riding the motorcycle No.KL-5/W 4609 along the NH- 220, a bus bearing registration No.KL-5/Q 9556 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, knocked him down. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious 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. 5,22,500/-, limited to Rs.4,00,000/-. MACA No.2880 of 2014 3 2025:KER:22552 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 documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A10 and Ext.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.1,36,230/- with 7.5% interest from the date of petition 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.Philip T. Varghese, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, and Smt P. Lissy Jose, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. MACA No.2880 of 2014 4 2025:KER:22552 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 the petitioner, he was working as Sales representative, earning Rs.8,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.4,000/-. 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 2008 will come to Rs.6,500/-. 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.6,500/-. 12. In the accident, the petitioner sustained the following injuries: Trimalleolar fracture left ankle. 13. The petitioner was treated as inpatient for four days. As per Ext.X1 disability certificate issued by the Medical College Hospital, MACA No.2880 of 2014 5 2025:KER:22552 Kottayam, the petitioner suffered 7% permanent physical disability. 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 7%, as fixed by the Tribunal. 14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 30 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.1,29,948/-. (Rupees One lakh Twenty nine thousand nine hundred and forty eight only). 15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded Rs.20000/-, being the income for 5 months @Rs.4,000/-. Since the notional income of the petitioner is re-fixed at Rs.6,500/-, towards loss of earning he is entitled to get a sum of Rs.32,500/-(6500 x 5 months) 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the tribunal has awarded Rs.18000/-, towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.15,000/- was awarded and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.1,000/- was awarded. MACA No.2880 of 2014 6 2025:KER:22552 According 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 4 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.35,000/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.2,000/- 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 appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.2,49,558/-, 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 Transportation 1,000 1,000 2 Extra nourishment 1,000 2,000 3 Damage to clothings 500 500 MACA No.2880 of 2014 7 2025:KER:22552 4 Bystander expenses 800 800 5 Medical expenses 22,810 22,810 6 Loss of earning 20,000 32,500 7 Pain and sufferings 18,000 35,000 8 Loss of amenities 15,000 25,000 9 Permanent disability 57,120 1,29,948 Total 1,36,230/- 2,49,558/- Enhanced - Rs.1,13,328/- 20. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.2,49,558/- (Rupees Two lakhs forty nine thousand five hundred and fifty eight 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 762 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. 21. 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 S.M.K.