MACA NO. 2562 OF 2018 1 2025:KER:29780 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 MACA NO. 2562 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPMV NO.313 OF 2015 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , IRINJALAKUDA APPELLANT/ PETITIONER : AJITH KUMAR ANAND AGED 27 YEARS S/O. ANAND, KILIYARA HOUSE, VATTANATHRA DESOM AND P.O., AMBALLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV V. BINOY RAM RESPONDENT S / RESPONDENTS : 1 K.N.SATHYAN S/O. NARAYANAN, KARIATTUKARAKKARAN HOUSE, ALAGAPPA NAGAR DESOM AND P.O., AMBALLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 302. 2 THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. THRISSUR TRADE CENTRE, KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 001 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA NO. 2562 OF 2018 2 2025:KER:29780 JUDGMENT The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 313 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 22.10.2014. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:- On 22.10.2014, while the petitioner was riding a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-45-K-7537 through Amballur-Alagappa Nagar Public Road, another motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-08-V- 4669 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the motor cycle, ridden by the petitioner. Due to the impact of hit, the petitioner sustained serious injuries. 3. The owner-cum-ridder of the offending motor cycle was arrayed as 1st respondent whereas the insurer was arrayed as the 2nd respondent. 4. The 2nd respondent contested the petition by filing a written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed despite admitting insurance coverage for the motor cycle involved in the accident. MACA NO. 2562 OF 2018 3 2025:KER:29780 5. During trial, from the side of the petitioner, Exts.A1 to A13 were produced and marked. The disability certificate issued by a Medical Board was marked as Ext.X1. From the side of the respondents, no evidence, whatsoever, was adduced. 6. After trial, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-08-V-4669 by the 1st respondent and being the insurer, the 2nd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The compensation was quantified at Rs.10,22,740/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. Dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner has come up with this appeal. 7. I heard Sri.Binoy Ram. V, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri.John Joseph Vettikad, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 8. From the rival contentions raised, it is evident that the main dispute that revolves around this appeal is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded. From a perusal of the MACA NO. 2562 OF 2018 4 2025:KER:29780 impugned award, it is apparent that for the purpose of determining compensation under the head of permanent disability and loss of earnings, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs. 7,000/-. In the petition, it was claimed that, at the time of the accident the petitioner was working as an Electrician earning a monthly income of Rs. 25,000/- per month. Though such a claim was raised in the petition, no evidence was adduced from the side of the petitioner to substantiate his contentions regarding his occupation and income. Nonetheless, admittedly the accident occurred in the year 2014. Therefore, in view of the dictum laid down in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236],  the Tribunal ought to have assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.9,500/- notionally. 10. The petitioner was aged 24 years, at the time of the accident. Therefore, in view of the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)], the multiplier to be reckoned is 18. The disability certificate marked in evidence as Ext.X1 shows that the petitioner has suffered a permenant permanent disability of 27% due to the MACA NO. 2562 OF 2018 5 2025:KER:29780 injuries sustained in the accident. Ext.X1 is a disability certificate issued by a competent medical board. The nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner justifies such an assessment of disability made by the medical board. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of 5,54,040 (Rs.9,500x12x18x27/100) as compensation under the head of permanent disability. Already an amount of Rs.4,08,240/- has been awarded by the Tribunal under the said head. After deducting the said amount, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,45,800/- (Rupees one lakh forty five thousand eight hundred only) as additional compensation under the head of permanent disability. 11. Consequent to the revision in the monthly income, corresponding enhancement must be made to the compensation awarded under the head of loss of earnings also. The Tribunal awarded compensation under the head of loss of earnings for a period of 8 months. The medical records adduced in evidence reveals that the petitioner has sustained the following injuries: 1. Fracture right clavicle MACA NO. 2562 OF 2018 6 2025:KER:29780 2. Fracture 6th , 7th , 8th and 9th ribs 3. Hemopneumo thorax both side. 4. Fracture left humerus 5. Fractue proximal phalynx left little finger. 12. The injuries sustained by the petitioners are certainly grevous in nature . Hence, I am of the view that the petitioner would have been prevented from doing any work or earning any income at least for one year. Hence the petitioner is found entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,14,000/- (Rs.9,500 x 12) as compensation under the head of loss of earnings. After deducting the already awarded amount of Rs.56,000/- the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs.58,000/- (Rupees fifty eight thousand only) as additional compensation under the head of loss of earnings. 13. Under the head of pain and sufferings, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.80,000/- as compensation. The nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, itself reflects the pain and sufferings endured by him in the accident. He sustained number of fractures and underwent 26 days of impatient treatment. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner must be MACA NO. 2562 OF 2018 7 2025:KER:29780 adequately compensated and a reasonable amount should be awarded under the head of pain and sufferings. The amount of Rs.80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the said head appears to be on the lower side. I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs.45,000/- under the said head. 13. The nature of injuries sustained and the treatment procedures undergone by the petitioner cannot be overlooked while awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, I am of the view that an amount of Rs.60,000/- is to be awarded as compensation under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. Hence the petitioner is entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the said head as well. In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs. 2,68,800/- (Rupees Two lakhs sixty eight thousand eight hundred only) (Rs.1,45,800/-+Rs.58,000/-+Rs.45,000/-+ +Rs.20,000/-) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of claim petition till the MACA NO. 2562 OF 2018 8 2025:KER:29780 date of deposit, The respondent insurance company is ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest before the Tribunal with proportionate costs within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. sd / JOBIN SEBASTIAN JUDGE jm/