2025:KER:25902 MACA NO. 189 OF 2021 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S. WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2025/ 28TH PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 189 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPMV NO.1106 OF 202 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - II, PATHANAMTHITTA / II ADDL. M.A.C.T. APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN O.P [M.V]: SUNIL JOHN AGED 38 YEARS S/O.JOHNKUTTY, VADAKKEKANJIRAVILA HOUSE, MANACODU, CHANNAPETTA P.O., NOW RESIDING AT INDIA PENTACOSTH CHURCH OF GOD, KUMBANAD P.O., THIRUVALLA. BY ADVS. T.K.BIJU (MANJINIKARA) SMT.ANNIE M.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT IN THE O.P [M.V]: THE BRANCH MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO.LTD., SUNDARAM TOWERS, 46 WHILE ROAD, ROYAL PETTAH, CHENNAI-600 014, LOCAL OFFICE AT ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO.LTD., AMRUTHA TOWERS, OPP.MAHARAJAS COLLEGE, MG ROAD, KOCHI-682 011. SRI.P JACOB MATHEW- R THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:25902 MACA NO. 189 OF 2021 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 19th day of March, 2025 The appeal arises out of the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1106 of 2012. 2. The appellant approached the Tribunal seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident on 28.01.2012, while he was driving a car through Punalur – Kayamkulam public road and when he reached at Kadackamon, another car bearing registration No.KL-25 A 8263 driven in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed against the vehicle of the appellant. As a result of the accident, the appellant/claimant sustained injuries. 3. In support of his claim, Exts.A1 to A14 documents were produced and marked. The claimant contended that he was a Pastor of India Penthacosth Church of God and was earning an income of Rs.10,000/- per month. Apart from the compensation for the injuries sustained by him 2025:KER:25902 MACA NO. 189 OF 2021 3 in the accident, he also sought a claim for the damages caused to his vehicle. Ext.A14, the survey report dated 02.04.2012, was relied on. However, the Tribunal found that the claimant could not successfully prove both his income as well as the damages to his car, and accordingly, proceeded to fix the monthly income of the appellant notionally at Rs.6000/-, granting compensation only for the injuries, whereas the claim for the damage to the vehicle was entirely dismissed. Aggrieved by this, the claimant has approached this Court with the present appeal. 4. Heard, Sri.T.K.Biju [Manjinikara], learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri.P.Jacob Mathew, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. 5. On a consideration of the rival submissions raised across the Bar, this Court finds that the appellant is entitled to succeed. The income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- is dismissed. Going by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the claimant is entitled to atleast a 2025:KER:25902 MACA NO. 189 OF 2021 4 minimum of Rs.8,500/- as notional income. However, it must be noted by this Court that the claimant was a Pastor in Indian Penthacosth Church of God. Therefore, his notional income cannot be fixed to that of a coolie worker. 6. In Sanjay Kumar v. Ashok Kumar [2014 (5) SCC 330] the Supreme Court held that even without documentary evidence if the claim of income is reasonable and in par with ground realities, the Tribunal can fix the income even without documentary evidence. Therefore, this Court finds that in the peculiar facts and circumstances, the claim of the appellant for fixing the income at Rs.10,000/- can be granted. 7. As regards the claim for the damage to the vehicle, Ext.A14 survey report shows that the damage has been quantified at Rs. 66,012.92/-. Though the learned counsel for the Insurance Company pointed out that in the absence of any specific finding regarding the acceptability of Ext.A14, the matter should be remanded back to the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered view that, after a period of nearly 12 years, it would be a futile exercise to remand the matter back to the Tribunal for considering the claim for the damages to the 2025:KER:25902 MACA NO. 189 OF 2021 5 vehicle. Hence, this Court is of the view that Ext. A14 can be accepted, and an amount of Rs.66,012/- is awarded as compensation for the damage caused to the vehicle. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is awarded with the following compensation: a) loss of earnings: Rs.7,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- – Rs.3,000/-). b) pain and sufferings: Rs.2,500/- (Rs. 7,500/- – Rs.5,000/-). c) loss of amenities: Rs.2,000/- (Rs. 5,000/- – Rs. 3,000/-). Thus, the appellant is entitled to a total amount of Rs.11,500/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand and Five Hundred only) as enhanced compensation, with interest at 9% from 15.10.2012 until realization, along with proportionate costs. In addition to the above, the appellant is also entitled to an amount of Rs.66,012/- towards the loss caused due to the damage to the vehicle. It is made clear that the interest shall 2025:KER:25902 MACA NO. 189 OF 2021 6 not accrue on the amount of Rs.66,012/- and also for a period of 895 days which is the delay in preferring this appeal. The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appeal is ordered accordingly. Sd/- EASWARAN S. JUDGE mea