M.A.C.A. No. 3291/2019 : 1 : 2025:KER:27943 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 MACA NO. 3291 OF 2019 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 03.05.2019 IN O.P(MV) NO.649 OF 2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: BIJI SEBASTIAN M.A, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. SEBASTIAN, RESIDING AT EDAPPULAVAN HOUSE, KOTTAPPADY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SMT. ANEY PAUL RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT: THE BRANCH MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, NEHA TOWERS NEAR GOVT. HOSPITAL K.H. IYER ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR. 683 542. BY ADV. SRI.M.M.IRSHAD MOOPPAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON 02.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A. No. 3291/2019 : 2 : 2025:KER:27943 JOHNSON JOHN, J. --------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 3291 of 2019 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2025. JUDGMENT The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No. 649 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. According to the petitioner, on 05.06.2017, while she was riding a scooter, autorickshaw driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner caused to hit the scooter and thereby, she sustained serious injuries. The 1st respondent is also the owner of the vehicle and the 2nd respondent is the insurer. 3. Before the Tribunal, Exhibits A1 to A10 were marked from the side of the petitioner and from the side of the respondents, Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent and that respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,05,500/- to the petitioner. M.A.C.A. No. 3291/2019 : 3 : 2025:KER:27943 4. Heard Smt. Aney Paul, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. M.M. Irshad Mooppan, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was aged 40 years and earning Rs.12,000/- per month from her occupation as a General Nurse. But, the Tribunal fixed only Rs.9,000/- as the notional income for the reason that no evidence is adduced to prove the occupation and income. 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.11,000/-, as the accident occurred in the year 2017. Therefore, I find that it is M.A.C.A. No. 3291/2019 : 4 : 2025:KER:27943 only reasonable to fix the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.11,000/- for the purpose of calculating the compensation. 6. The Tribunal has granted loss of earnings for 3 months and when the same is calculated as per the revised notional income, the appellant is entitled for Rs.33,000/-. The Tribunal has already granted Rs.27,000/- under this head. Therefore, an additional compensation of Rs.6,000/- is granted to the appellant towards ‘loss of earnings’. 7. There is no evidence to show that the appellant sustained any physical disability as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident. The treatment records of the appellant shows that she sustained the following injuries: 1. Fracture lateral tibial condyle Rt. 2. Grade III anterior Horn Tear lateral meniscus + High grade ACL tear 3. Tenderness face 4. Pain and swelling (Rt) knee 5. Post traumatic stiffness (Rt) knee 8. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal granted only Rs.25,000/- towards ‘pain and sufferings’ and only M.A.C.A. No. 3291/2019 : 5 : 2025:KER:27943 Rs.20,000/- towards ‘loss of amenities’ and the same is on the lower side. Considering the nature of injuries and period of treatment, I find that an additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- each can be granted to the appellant under the heads ‘loss of amenities’ and ‘pain and sufferings’. I find that the compensation granted by the Tribunal under all other heads are reasonable and requires no interference. 9. 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.) Pain and sufferings 25,000/- 10,000/- Loss of amenities 20,000/- 10,000/- Loss of earnings 27,000/- 6,000/- Total enhanced compensation 26,000/- 10. Thus, a total amount of Rs.26,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Thousand 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 M.A.C.A. No. 3291/2019 : 6 : 2025:KER:27943 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