M.A.C.A. No. 4292/2019 : 1 : 2025:KER:29082 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 MACA NO. 4292 OF 2019 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 01.03.2019 IN OP(MV) NO.729 OF 2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL VATAKARA APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: RAJEESH K.P., AGED 32 YEARS S/O RAJEEVAN,RESIDING AT KINARUPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KADIYANGAD, PERAMBRA,KOZHIKODE-673 508. BY ADV. SMT. K.V.RASHMI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 SREEJESH N K., S/O SREEDHARAN,RESIDING AT NADUKKANDIYIL HOUSE,P.O.PALERI TOWN, KUTTIYADI,KOZHIKODE-673 508. 2 ABINLAL.M.P, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.ASHOKAN,RESIDING AT MALOOPOYIL HOUSE,P.O.PALERI TOWN,KUTTIYADI, KOZHIKODE-673 508. 3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, RAMEEZ ARCADE,CHEROOTTY ROAD, NEAR FLY OVER JUNCTION, KOZHIKODE-673 001, REP.BY ITS MANAGER. R3 BY ADV. SMT. K.S.SANTHI THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON 04.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A. No. 4292/2019 : 2 : 2025:KER:29082 JOHNSON JOHN, J. --------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 4292 of 2019 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2025. JUDGMENT The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No. 729 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vatakara filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. According to the petitioner, on 04.06.2016, while he was riding a motorcycle, auto rickshaw driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner caused to hit the motorcycle and thereby, he sustained serious injuries. The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and the 3rd respondent is the insurer. 3. Before the Tribunal, O.P.(MV) Nos. 729 of 2019 and 612 of 2017 were jointly considered and from the side of the petitioners, Exhibits A1 to A9 and Exhibit C1 were marked 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 2nd respondent and that respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to M.A.C.A. No. 4292/2019 : 3 : 2025:KER:29082 pay compensation to the petitioner. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,98,700/- to the petitioner. 4. Heard Smt. Rashmi K.V., the learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. K.S. Santhi, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was aged 29 years and earning Rs.25,000/- per month from his occupation as a driver and for the reason that no evidence is adduced to prove the income, the Tribunal fixed only Rs.8,000/- as notional income 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 M.A.C.A. No. 4292/2019 : 4 : 2025:KER:29082 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.10,500/-, as the accident occurred in the year 2016. Therefore, I find that it is only reasonable to fix the notional income of the appellant at Rs.10,500/- for the purpose of calculating the compensation. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal accepted 17% functional disability on the basis of Exhibit C1 disability certificate; but has not made any addition towards future prospects. 8. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and Jagdish v. Mohan [(2018) 4 SCC 571] shows that the benefit of future prospects should not be confined only to those who have a permanent job and would extend to self-employed individuals and in case of a self-employed person, an addition of 40% of the established income should be made where the age of the victim at the time of the accident was below 40 years. 9. When the compensation for permanent disability and loss of earning capacity is calculated as per the revised notional income, the M.A.C.A. No. 4292/2019 : 5 : 2025:KER:29082 same would be Rs.5,09,796/- [(10,500 + 40%) x 12 x 17 x 17/100]. The Tribunal has already granted Rs.2,77,440/- and therefore, the appellant is granted an additional compensation of Rs.2,32,356/- under this head. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the Tribunal granted ‘loss of earnings’ for 6 months and when the same is calculated as per the revised notional income, the appellant is entitled for Rs.63,000/-. The Tribunal has already granted Rs.48,000/- and therefore, an additional compensation of Rs.15,000/- is granted to the appellant towards ‘loss of earnings’. 11. The Tribunal allowed bystander's expenses for 90 days at the rate of Rs.300 per day and I find that the bystander's expenses can be granted at the rate of Rs.400/- per day and therefore, an additional compensation of Rs.9,000/- is granted to the appellant under this head. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal granted only Rs.60,000/- towards ‘pain and sufferings’ and only Rs.40,000/- towards ‘loss of amenities’ and the same is on the lower M.A.C.A. No. 4292/2019 : 6 : 2025:KER:29082 side. The treatment records of the appellant shows that he sustained: type II open fracture shaft of femur; type III open fracture right patella; type II open fracture both bone right leg; and lacerated wound over right foot. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries, period of treatment and disability, an additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- each is granted to the appellant 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. 13. 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.) Permanent disability and loss of earning capacity 2,77,440/- 2,32,356/- Loss of earnings 48,000/- 15,000/- Bystander's expenses 27,000/- 9,000/- Pain and sufferings 60,000/- 10,000/- Loss of amenities 40,000/- 10,000/- Total enhanced compensation 2,76,356/- M.A.C.A. No. 4292/2019 : 7 : 2025:KER:29082 14. Thus, a total amount of Rs.2,76,356/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Six only) is awarded as enhanced compensation. The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the application till realization (excluding the period of delay of 125 days in filing the appeal). 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