M.A.C.A. No. 1290/2022 : 1 : 2025:KER:30808 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1947 MACA NO. 1290 OF 2022 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 12.01.2022 IN OP(MV) NO.73 OF 2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PUNALUR APPELLANT/PETITIONER: RAJAN ALEXANDER, SON OF ALEXANDER, AVICOTT HOUSE, NETAJI NAGAR 71, KIZHAKKEKKARA, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADVS. SMT. K.P.SANTHI SMT. TARA PREM SMT. SARIMOL KAREETHARA SMT. NISHA G.THARAMAL RESPONDENTS/3RD RESPONDENT: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001 BY ADV. SRI. P.M.M.NAJEEB KHAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.04.2025, THE COURT ON 09.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A. No. 1290/2022 : 2 : 2025:KER:30808 JOHNSON JOHN, J. --------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 1290 of 2022 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of April, 2025. JUDGMENT The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No. 73 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Punalur filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. According to the petitioner, on 22.12.2015, while the petitioner was riding a motorcycle, maruti van driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner caused to hit the motorcycle and thereby, he sustained serious injuries. The 2nd respondent is the owner and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. Before the Tribunal, Exhibits A1 to A10 were marked from the side of the petitioner and no evidence adduced from the side of the respondents. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent and that the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,82,730/- to the petitioner. M.A.C.A. No. 1290/2022 : 3 : 2025:KER:30808 4. Heard Smt. K.P. Santhi, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. P.M.M. Najeeb Khan, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was aged 56 years and earning Rs.30,000/- per month from his occupation and for the reason that no evidence is adduced to prove the occupation and income, the Tribunal fixed a notional income of Rs.8,000/- per month and the same is on the lower side. 6. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735 = 2014 KHC 4027] shows that even in the absence of any evidence, the monthly income of an ordinary worker has to be fixed as Rs.4,500/- in respect of the accident occurred in the year 2004 and for the subsequent years, the monthly income could be reckoned by adding Rs.500/- each per year. If the monthly income of the appellant is calculated by adopting the above principle, it will come to Rs.10,000/-, as the accident M.A.C.A. No. 1290/2022 : 4 : 2025:KER:30808 occurred in the year 2015. Therefore, I find that it is only reasonable to fix the monthly notional income of the appellant as Rs.10,000/- for the purpose of calculating the compensation. 7. Even though no evidence is adduced to prove that the appellant sustained any physical disability as a result of the injury sustained in the accident, the Tribunal, after considering the nature of injuries, age and occupation, accepted 6% functional disability. 8. When the compensation for permanent disability and loss of earning power is calculated as per the revised notional income, the same will come to Rs.64,800/- [10,000 X 12 x 9 x 6/100]. The Tribunal has already granted Rs.51,840/- under this head. Therefore, an additional compensation of Rs.12,960/- is granted to the appellant under this head. 9. The Tribunal granted ‘loss of earnings’ for 4 months and when the same is calculated as per the revised notional income, the same would come to Rs.40,000/-. Since the Tribunal has already granted Rs.32,000/-, an additional compensation of Rs.8,000/- is granted to the appellant under this head. M.A.C.A. No. 1290/2022 : 5 : 2025:KER:30808 10. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has granted only Rs.30,000/- towards ‘pain and sufferings’ and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of amenities’ and the same are on the lower side. Considering the nature of injuries and period of treatment, the appellant is granted additional compensation of Rs.7,500/- each under the heads-- ‘pain and sufferings’ and ‘loss of amenities’. I find that the compensation granted by the Tribunal under all other heads are reasonable and requires no interference. 11. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to the enhanced compensation as given below: Particulars Compensation awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Additional amount granted by this Court (Rs.) Compensation for permanent disability and loss of earning power 51,840/- 12,960/- Loss of earnings 32000/- 8,000/- Pain and sufferings 30,000/- 7,500/- Loss of amenities 15,000/- 7,500/- Total enhanced compensation 35,960/- M.A.C.A. No. 1290/2022 : 6 : 2025:KER:30808 12. Thus, a total amount of Rs.35,960/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty only) is awarded as enhanced compensation. The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the application till realization. The appellant would also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case. The claimant shall furnish the details of the bank account to the insurance company for transfer of the amount. The appeal is allowed as above. sd/- JOHNSON JOHN, JUDGE. Rv