MACA NO. 3255 OF 2018 1 2025:KER:27250 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. 3255 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 14.02.2018 IN OPMV NO.1233 OF 2018 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & II ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM APPELLANT/S: JOONU RAJ AGED 26 YEARS S/O RAJAN,SMRITHI,OONNIAMOODU,AYIROOR,KOLLAM - 691578 BY ADVS. PRATHEESH.P SMT.RENY ANTO RESPONDENT/S: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD,KOLLAM 691001 BY ADV SRI.ABHIJETT LESSLI 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. 3255 OF 2018 2 2025:KER:27250 JUDGMENT The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1233 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kollam has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident occurred on 12.07.2009. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:- On 12.07.2009, at 10.30 a.m., while the petitioner was riding a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL2/AC/1266 through Paravoor-Oonninmoodu Public road and when he reached near Saradamukku, a car bearing Reg.No.KL 01/W 7135 driven by the 2nd respondent hit on the motor cycle ridden by the petitioner. Due to the impact of the hit, the petitioner was thrown to the road causing him serious injuries. 3. The owner and driver of the offending car were arrayed as 1st and 2nd respondent respectively, whereas, the insurer of the said car was arrayed as 3rd respondent. 4. The 3rd respondent contested the petition by filing a written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite admitting insurance coverage for the car involved in the accident. 5. During trial, the petitioner was examined as PW1 and MACA NO. 3255 OF 2018 3 2025:KER:27250 the documents produced from his side were marked in evidence as Exts.A1 to A8. 6. After trial, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing Reg.No.KL 01/W 7135 by the 2nd respondent, and being the insurer, the 3rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The compensation was quantified as Rs. 75,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate costs. Aggreived by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner has come up with this appeal. 7. I heard Sri.Pratheesh, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Abhijith lessli, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is too meager and such an amount was awarded by the Tribunal without considering the gravity and nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident as well as the consequent hardships and inconveniences endured by him due to the accident. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent insurance company contended that the MACA NO. 3255 OF 2018 4 2025:KER:27250 compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is just, fair, reasonable, and adequate and hence, warrants no interference. 9. From the rival contentions raised it is decernable that the main dispute that revolves around in this appeal is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded. For the purpose of determining compensation under the head of loss earnings the Tribunal assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs.3,500/-. In the petition it is claimed that the petitioner was an Electrician by profession and was earning a monthly income of Rs.6,000/- per month. Though a contention as stated above was taken from the side of the petitioner, no evidence was adduced from his side to substantiate his contentions regarding his occupation and income. Nonethless, it is an admitted fact that the accident occured in the year 2009. Therefore, in view of the principles 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.7,000/-. I am not oblivious that only an amount of Rs.6,000/- was claimed in the petition as income of the petitioner. However, as the provisions contained under Section 166 of the MACA NO. 3255 OF 2018 5 2025:KER:27250 Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial one, it is the duty of the court to ensure that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable irrespective of the claim made by the parties. Therefore, I find no illegality in fixing the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.7,000/- notionally. 10. The medical records adduced in evidence in this case reveals that the petitioner has sustained the following injuries in the accident: 1) Fracture right tibia 2) Lacerated wound over anterior aspect of right leg. 2) Lacerated wound right leg. The Tribunal after considering the nature of injuries took loss of earnings for a period of three months. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, I am of the view that the three months period of loss of earnings taken by the Tribunal is not justifiable. The petitioner has sustained severe injuries in the accident including fracture of tibea. The nature of injuries itself shows that he would have been prevented from doing any work or earning any income at least for six months. Hence the petitioner is found entitled to get an amount of Rs.42,000/- (Rs.7000x 6). Already a amount of Rs.10,500/- has been awarded by the Tribunal under the said head. After MACA NO. 3255 OF 2018 6 2025:KER:27250 deducting the said amount, the petitioner is found entitled to get an amount of Rs.31,500/- as additional compensation under the said head. 11. Under the head of pain and sufferings the Tribunal awarded only a meagre amount of Rs.20,000/-. The nature of injuries itself is self speaking regarding the pain and sufferings endured by the petitioner due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The treatment records reveal that the petitioner underwent inpatient treatment for 7 days, and also undergone a surgery. Therefore, I am of the view that an additional compensation of Rs.30,000/- is to be awarded under the head of pain and sufferings. 12. Similarly the hardship and inconveniences caused to the petitioner due to the injuries sustained in the accident, ought not to have been overlooked by the Tribunal while awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. I am of the view that an amount of Rs.35,000/- is to be awarded under the said head also. After deducting the already award amount of Rs.10,000/-, the petitioner is thus entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. MACA NO. 3255 OF 2018 7 2025:KER:27250 13. The compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads appears to be reasonable and justifiable and hence, no interference is warranted. Hence, an amount of Rs.86,500/- (Rupees eighty six thousand five hundred only) (Rs.31,500/- + 30,000/- + Rs. 25,000/-) is to be added to the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs. 86,500/- (Eighty six thousand five hundred only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of claim petition till the 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/