2025:KER:22706 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2025/20TH PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 4310 OF 2017 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 08.05.2017 IN OPMV NO.393 OF 2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR. APPELLANT: LEJO, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O REV. FR.JOSEPH KARAMALA, KARAMALA HOUSE,ALLAPRA KARA, VENGOLA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.ELSON SIMON RESPONDENT: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, MMC XIX/642, KULANGARA TOWERS, MC ROAD, KACHERITHAZHAM, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DIST- 686 661. BY ADV SMT.T.C.SOWMIAVATHY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No.4310 of 2017 2025:KER:22706 -2- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 11th day of March, 2025 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.393/2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor 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 19.01.2014. According to the petitioner, on 19.01.2014 at about 11.10 a.m, while he was riding a motorcycle along the Aluva-Munnar road, a tempo traveller bearing Registration No.KL-35/B-5927 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 cum owner and 2nd 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.7,20,000/- limited to Rs.4,00,000/-. 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. 5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral M.A.C.A.No.4310 of 2017 2025:KER:22706 -3- testimonies of PW1 and PW2 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A14 and Ext.B1. 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.2,44,802/- 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.Elson Simon, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and smt.T.C.Sowmiavathy, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd 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 Engineer in Concept Engineering, earning Rs.7,500/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.6,000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. M.A.C.A.No.4310 of 2017 2025:KER:22706 -4- 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 2014 will come to Rs.9,500/-. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner above that of a coolie. He examined PW1 and also produced Ext.A10 to prove that he was working as a site engineer. However, in the FIS statement, he claimed that, he was employed abroad. It was in the above context, the tribunal disbelieved the evidence of PW1 and also Ext.A10 certificate. However, in the FIS, he had claimed that he had passed Plus two. In the above circumstances, considering the fact he passed Plus two, I hold that, his notional income can be fixed at Rs.10,000/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: Deformity right ankle with abrasion, tenderness and oedema and trimalleolar fracture with posterior dislocation right ankle. 13. As per Exhibit.A11 disability certificate the petitioner suffered 9% permanent physical disability. It was issued by an orthopaedic surgeon, who was examined as PW2. 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 M.A.C.A.No.4310 of 2017 2025:KER:22706 -5- accepted as 9%, as fixed by the Tribunal. 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.2,02,500/-. 15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.30,000/- being the income for 5 months @Rs.6,000/-. 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.60,000/- (10,000 x 6 months). 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.20,000/- was awarded and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.1,500/- was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side. 17. The petitioner sustained very serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 14 days in 2 sessions. Because of the injuries sustained, the percentage of disability suffered M.A.C.A.No.4310 of 2017 2025:KER:22706 -6- 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.75,000/-, 50,000/- and 5,000/- 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 petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.4,58,602/-, 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 30,000/- 60,000/- 2 Transport to hospital 3,000/- 3,000/- 3 Extra nourishment 1,500/- 5,000/- 4 Payment to bystander 3,500/- 3,500/- 5 Damage to clothes 1,000/- 1,000/- 6 Medical expenses 58,602/- 58,602/- 7 Pain and sufferings 30,000/- 75,000/- 8 Loss of amenities etc. 20,000/- 50,000/- 9 Permanent disability 97,200/- 2,02,500/- Total 2,44,802/- 4,58,602/- Enhanced Rs.2,13,800- M.A.C.A.No.4310 of 2017 2025:KER:22706 -7- 20. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.4,58,602/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty eight thousand six hundred and two only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, excluding interest for a period of 118 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. (Enhanced compensation will carry interest @8%) 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