2025:KER:27127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2025/29TH PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 2922 OF 2014 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.05.2012 IN OPMV NO.1470 OF 2009 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & I ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM. APPELLANT: MANI AMMA, AGED 47 YEARS, D/O.RADHAMMA, PARIMANAM NIVAS, PULLICKARA MUKKU, ARINALLOOR P.O., THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.PRATHEESH.P SMT.S.SEETHA RESPONDENT: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN MATHEW, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A. M.A.C.A.No.2922 of 2014 2025:KER:27127 -2- THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No.2922 of 2014 2025:KER:27127 -3- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 20th day of March, 2025 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1470/2009 on the file of the I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam 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 20.03.2009. According to the petitioner, on 20.03.2009, while he was travelling in a KSRTC bus through Chavara-Sasthamcottah public road and when she was trying to get down from the bus near Kairali petrol pump, the 3rd respondent conductor rang the bell negligently and 2nd respondent driver negligently driven the bus. As a result of which, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. 3. The 1st respondent is the Managing Director of KSRTC. 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.1,01,000/-. 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. 5. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary M.A.C.A.No.2922 of 2014 2025:KER:27127 -4- evidence Exts.A1 to A7. 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.63,000/- 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.Pratheesh P, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.Alex Antony Sebasstian P A, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st 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 engaged in cow feeding and the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.3,000/-. 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 M.A.C.A.No.2922 of 2014 2025:KER:27127 -5- notional income of a coolie, in the year 2009 will come to Rs.7,000/-. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.7,000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. Since the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2009 will come to Rs.7,000/-, in order to award just and reasonable compensation, in the light of a dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa (supra), the notional income of the petitioner is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.7,000/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained Segmental fracture lower and middle 1/3 of right leg. 13. In this case the petitioner has not produced any disability certificate except the wound certificate and as such the petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation on the head 'loss of disability'. 14. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.6,000/- being the income for 2 months @Rs.3,000/-. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner might have lost income at least for a period of 3 months. Therefore, towards 'loss of income' the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.21,000/- (7,000 x 3 months). 15. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained M.A.C.A.No.2922 of 2014 2025:KER:27127 -6- by the petitioner, including fracture on right leg, the compensation awarded on the head ‘pain and sufferings’ is on the lower side and, hence it is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. 16. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 17. Therefore, the petitioner/appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.88,000/-, 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 6,000/- 21,000/- 2 Transportation to hospital 2,000/- 2,000/- 3 Extra nourishment 2,000/- 2,000/- 4 Damage to clothings 1,000/- 1,000/- 5 Bystanders expense 2,000/- 2,000/- 6 Hospital charges 20,000/- 20,000/- 7 Pain and sufferings 10,000/- 20,000/- 8 Loss of amenities 15,000/- 15,000/- 9 Discomfort 5,000/- 5,000/- Total 63,000/- 88,000/- Enhanced Rs.25,000/- 18. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.88,000/- M.A.C.A.No.2922 of 2014 2025:KER:27127 -7- (Rupees eighty eight thousand 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 805 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 ADS