Kunjumol vs The United India Insurance Company Ltd
2025 Latest Caselaw 7650 Ker

Kerala High Court

Kunjumol vs The United India Insurance Company Ltd on 4 April, 2025

                                               2025:KER:29547
MACA NO.1008 OF 2017
                                 1

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR

   FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947

                       MACA NO. 1008 OF 2017

       AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2016 IN OPMV

     NO.1306 OF 2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,

                           IRINJALAKUDA

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

         KUNJUMOL
         W/O. BABU, NEDUMPURATH HOUSE, ARAICHANKUZHI
         DESOM,KUTTICHIRA VILLAGE & P.O, MUKUNDAPURAM
         TALUK.

         BY ADVS.
         SRI.P.V.BABY
         SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH


RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:

         THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
         CHALAKUDY - 680 307.

         BY ADV SMT.P.A.REZIYA

     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
                                                              2025:KER:29547
MACA NO.1008 OF 2017
                                        2

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1306/2013 on the file of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, is the appellant herein. (For the

purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank

before the Tribunal).

2. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained

in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24.10.2013. According to the

petitioner, on 24.10.2013 at about 9.20 a.m., while she was riding pillion on a

motorcycle, a car bearing reg.no.KL-45-E 1632 driven by the 1st respondent in

a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle and as a result of the

accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries.

3. The 1st respondent is the driver cum owner and the 2nd

respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioner,

the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending

vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.6,78,000/-

limited to Rs.3,00,000/-.

4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the 2025:KER:29547 MACA NO.1008 OF 2017

accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the

driver of the offending vehicle.

5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of

PW1and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A11. No evidence was adduced

by the respondents.

6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found

negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total

compensation of Rs.3,36,200/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this appeal.

8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is just and reasonable?

9. Heard Sri.P.V.Baby, the learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner/appellant, and Smt.P.A.Raziya, the learned Standing Counsel for

the 2nd respondent.

10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid

insurance policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions

raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the income of the 2025:KER:29547 MACA NO.1008 OF 2017

petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal. As per the claim petition, the petitioner

was working as a coolie, earning Rs.6000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed

his monthly income at Rs.5000/-.

11. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional income of a

coolie, in the year 2013 will come to Rs.9000/-.Therefore, the learned counsel

prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.9000/-. The

learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the

tribunal is reasonable. Since the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2013

will come to Rs.9000/-, in order to award just and reasonable compensation,

in the light of a dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Ramachandrappa (supra), the notional income of the petitioner is

liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.9000/-.

12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries:

• open fracture of right radius, zone-8 extensor tendon injury(R) forearm and lacerated wound right thumb.

13. Ext.A9 disability certificate shows that the petitioner suffered 2025:KER:29547 MACA NO.1008 OF 2017

35.24% permanent physical disability. It was issued by the doctor who

examined as PW1. The Tribunal, however, scaled down the percentage of

disability of the petitioner to 25%, without assigning valid and cogent

reasons.

14. One of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is regarding the disability of the petitioner as taken by the Tribunal.

In the impugned award itself the Tribunal noted that the petitioner was present

at the time of hearing, that all her fingers on the right hand become stiff, that

two of her fingers are remaining straight and two are remaining bend. It was

on the basis of those disabilities PW1 assessed her permanent physical

disability at 35.24%. The law is settled that, if the Tribunal is not satisfied

with the disability certificate produced by the petitioner, the remedy is to refer

him to a medical board or higher Authority.(See Manikantan G. v.

Janardhanan Nair and Others, 2021 (5)KHC 305). Having not done so, the

Tribunal was not justified in scaling down the percentage of disability from

what is shown in the disability certificate. I do find any grounds to disbelieve

the said disability and as such the permanent physical disability of the

petitioner is fixed as 35.24%.

2025:KER:29547 MACA NO.1008 OF 2017

15. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 46 years.

Therefore, 25% of the monthly income is to be added towards future

prospects, as held in the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay

Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and the multiplier to be applied is 13, as held in

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. In the

above circumstances, the loss of disability will come to Rs.6,18,462/-.

16. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only

Rs.25000/- being the income for 5 months @Rs.5000/-. Considering the

nature of the injuries sustained and the percentage of disability suffered by the

petitioner, the petitioner might have lost income at least for a period of 6

months. Therefore, towards 'loss of income' the petitioner is entitled to get a

sum of Rs.54000/- (9000 x 6 months).

17. Towards the head 'pain and sufferings', the Tribunal has

awarded Rs.40,000/- Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.20,000/- was

awarded and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.2000/- was awarded. According

to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those

heads are on the lower side.

18. The petitioner sustained very serious injuries in the accident

and was treated as inpatient for 11 days. In the meantime, she had undergone 2025:KER:29547 MACA NO.1008 OF 2017

a surgery also. Because of the injuries sustained, the percentage of disability

suffered and the length of treatment undergone by the petitioner, I hold that

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the heads 'pain and

sufferings', 'loss of amenities of life' and 'extra nourishment' are on the lower

side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.50000/-, Rs.50000/- and Rs.3000/-

respectively.

19. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads,

as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and

reasonable.

20. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total

compensation of Rs.8,29,662/-, as modified and recalculated above and given

in the table below, for easy reference:

Sl.

  No.           Head of Claim             Amount awarded by    Amount Awarded in
                                           Tribunal (in Rs.)     Appeal (in Rs.)
   1    Loss of earning                         25000                54000
   2    Transportation expenses                  4000                4000
   3    Extra nourishment                        2000                3000

   5    Medical expense                         46400                46400
   6    Attendant expense                        3300                3300
   7    Pain and suffering                      40000                50000
   8    Permanent disability                    195000              618462
                                                                  2025:KER:29547
MACA NO.1008 OF 2017


      9   Loss of amenities                  20000                 50000
          Total                              336200                829662
          Enhanced Rs.                                  493462

21. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent

No.2 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.8,29,662/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs

Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Two only), less the amount

already deposited, if any, along with interest at the rate ordered by the

Tribunal, from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, with

proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. (Enhanced

compensation will carry interest @8%)

On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the

entire amount to the petitioner, excluding court fee payable, if any, without

delay, as per rules.

Sd/-

C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE Pvv