Kerala High Court
Krishnan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd on 7 April, 2025
MACA. No.3839/2017
1
2025:KER:32662
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947
MACA NO. 3839 OF 2017
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 16.08.2016 IN OPMV NO.874 OF
2011 OF IV ADDITIONAL MACT, PALAKKAD
APPELLANT/PETITINER:
KRISHNAN
AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. NAGU APPAN,
RESIDING AT ANGODE HOUSE, VELAMPUZHA,
ELAVAMPADAM POST, ALATHUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.BABY MATHEW
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.2:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
IG TOWERS, NEAR BUS STAND, MAIN ROAD,
NEMMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678001.
(INSURER OF VEHICLE REG.NO.KL 07 AJ-8055)
(POLICY NO. 1012043110P000536982)
(VALID FROM 01-07-2010 TO 30-06-2011)
BY ADV SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA. No.3839/2017
2
2025:KER:32662
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 7th day of April, 2025
The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.874/2011 on the file of the
additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad 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 5.4.2011.
According to the petitioner, on 5.4.2011 at about 8.15 p.m., while he was
riding a motor cycle, a Tata Sumo bearing registration No.KL-07-AJ-
8055 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner
knocked him down and as a result of the accident, the petitioner
sustained serious injuries.
3. The 1st respondent is the owner cum driver 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
2025:KER:32662
the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P.
is Rs.5,90,000/-.
4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the
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 testimonies of
PW1and PW2 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A17. 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.3,02,700/- 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?
2025:KER:32662
9. Heard Sri. Baby Mathew, the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner/appellant, and Sri. Unnikrishnan V. Alapatt, 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 petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the
petitioner was working as an automobile mechanic earning Rs.8,000/-
per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.5,000/-.
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 2011 will come to Rs.8000/-. Since the petitioner
could not prove his job or income as claimed in the OP, in the light of a
dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ramachandrappa (supra), his notional income is liable to be fixed as
that of a coolie, at Rs.8,000/-.
2025:KER:32662
12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries:
1. comminuted fracture medial femoral condyle (R)
2. Comminuted fracture lateral tibial condyle (R)
3. Lacerated wound on chin and right knee
He was treated as inpatient for 12 days. In the meanwhile he had
undergone a surgery also.
13. As per Exhibit A11 disability certificate issued by PW1, the
petitioner suffered 12.5% permanent physical disability. The Tribunal,
has accepted the permanent physical disability of the petitioner as such
and hence, I do not find any grounds to disbelieve the same. Therefore,
the permanent physical disability of the petitioner is accepted as 12.5%,
as fixed by the Tribunal.
14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 35 years.
Therefore, 40% 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
16, as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, [(2009) 6
SCC 121]. In the above circumstances, the loss of disability will come to
2025:KER:32662
Rs.2,68,800/-.
15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only
Rs.30,000/- being the income for 6 months @Rs.5000/-. Since the
notional income of the petitioner is re-fixed at Rs. 8000/-, towards loss
of earning he is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 48,000/- (8,000x 6 months).
16. Towards the head 'pain and sufferings', the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.30,000/- and towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.10,000/-
was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side.
17. The petitioner sustained very serious injuries in the accident
and was treated as inpatient for 12 days. In the meanwhile he had
undergone one 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' and 'loss of amenities of life' are on
the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.50,000/- and
Rs.30,000/- respectively.
2025:KER:32662
18. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other
heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just
and reasonable.
19. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total
compensation of Rs.5,09,500/-, 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 30,000/- 48,000/-
2 Medical expenses 92,700/- 92,700/-
3 Bystander expenses 3000/- 3,000/-
4 Transportation charges 6,000/- 6,000/-
5 Extra nourishment 10,000/- 10,000/-
6 Damage to clothing etc. 1000/- 1000/-
7 Pain and suffering 30,000/- 50,000/-
8 Disability 1,20,000/- 2,68,800/-
9 Loss of amenities 10,000/- 30,000/-
Total 3,02,700/- 5,09,500/-
Enhanced Rs.2,06,800/-
20. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent
No.2 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.5,09,500/- (Rupees five
lakh nine thousand and five hundred only), less the amount already
2025:KER:32662
deposited, if any, along with interest at the rate ordered by the Tribunal,
from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, excluding interest for
a period of 362 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with
proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today.
(Enhanced compensation will carry interest @8%).
21. 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
sou.
