Kerala High Court
Ammu vs Sivachandran on 8 April, 2025
MACA. No.543/2014
1
2025:KER:32669
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947
MACA NO. 543 OF 2014
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 19.07.2013 IN OPMV NO.827 OF
2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
AMMU
AGED 51 YEARS, W/O.SANKUNNI,
RESIDING AT PERADIPPURATH HOUSE,
P.O.PERINGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
SRI.A.R.NIMOD
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SIVACHANDRAN
S/O.CHAMI, RESIDING AT ONAPPARAMBIL HOUSE,
KOTHACHIRA P.O., PERINGODE, PALAKKAD-679533.
2 SANTHOSH @ SANTHOSH KUMAR
S/O.UNNIKRISHNA KURUP,
RESIDING AT KARATH VALAPPIL HOUSE,
PAYYAZHI VADAKKEKARA, AMMAKKAVU,
PERINGODE P.O., PALAKKAD-679535.
MACA. No.543/2014
2
2025:KER:32669
3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
BRANCH OFFICE, FAIZAL BUILDING, MAIN ROAD,
OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD-679101.
BY ADV SMT.T.C.SOWMIAVATHY, SC
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 08.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA. No.543/2014
3
2025:KER:32669
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2025
The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.827/2010 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam 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 16.6.2010.
According to the petitioner, on 16.6.2010 at about 6 p.m., while she was
walking along the road side, an autorickshaw bearing registration
No.KL-52A-8146 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent
manner knocked her down and as a result of the accident, the petitioner
sustained serious injuries.
3. The 1st respondent is the owner, the 2nd respondent is the driver
and 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to
2025:KER:32669
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 Rs1,32,000/-.
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 testimony of PW1
and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A8. 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.72,200/- 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:
2025:KER:32669
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
9. Heard Sri.T.C. Suresh Menon, the learned Counsel appearing
for the petitioner/appellant, and Smt. T.C. Sowmiavathy, the learned
Standing Counsel for the 3rd 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. As per the claim petition, the
petitioner was a housewife, earning Rs.3,000/- per month, but the
Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.2500/-.
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 2010 will come to Rs.7500/-.Therefore, the
learned counsel prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at
2025:KER:32669
Rs.7500/-. 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 2010 will come to Rs.7500/-, 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.7500/-.
12. In the accident the petitioner sustained compound fracture
both bones (left) leg. She was treated as inpatient for ten days.
13. As per Exhibit A7 disability certificate issued by PW1 the
petitioner suffered 8% 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 8%, as
fixed by the Tribunal.
14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 47 years.
Therefore, 25% of the monthly income is to be added towards future
2025:KER:32669
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.1,17,000/-.
15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only
Rs.7500/- being the income for 3 months @Rs.2500/- 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. 45,000/- (7500x 6 months).
16. Towards the head 'pain and sufferings', the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.15000/- and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.2,000/- was
awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side. Towards
'loss of amenities of life' no compensation was seen awarded.
2025:KER:32669
17. The petitioner sustained serious injuries in the accident and
was treated as inpatient for 10 days. 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 'extra nourishment'
are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.40,000/-, and
Rs. 5,000/-respectively. For the very same reasons, petitioner is entitled
for compensation on the head 'loss of amenities of life' and Rs.25,000/-
is awarded on that head.
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.2,48,500/-, as modified and recalculated above and
given in the table below, for easy reference:
2025:KER:32669
Sl.
No. Head of Claim Amount awarded by Amount Awarded in
Tribunal (in Rs.) Appeal (in Rs.)
1 Loss of earning 7500/- 45,000/-
2 Medical expenses 13,000/- 13,000/-
3 Bystander expenses 2,000/- 2,000/-
4 Transportation expenses 1,000/- 1,000/-
5 Extra nourishment 2,000/- 5,000/-
6 Damage to clothing etc. 500/- 500/-
7 Pain and suffering 15,000/- 40,000/-
8 Loss of amenities of life Nil 25,000/-
9 disability 31,200/- 1,17,000/-
Total 72,200/- 2,48,500/-
Amount enhanced- Rs.1,76,300/-
20. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent
No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.2,48,500/- (Rupees two lakh
forty eight thousand five hundred 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%).
21. On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall
2025:KER:32669
disburse the entire amount to the petitioner, excluding court fee payable,
if any, without delay, as per rules.
Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR,
JUDGE
sou.
