Kerala High Court

Muhammed Ashraf @ Ashraf vs Muhammed on 3 February, 2025

MACA NO. 1435 OF 2017

                                 1

                                                      2025:KER:9388

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
    MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 14TH MAGHA, 1946
                       MACA NO. 1435 OF 2017
 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 08.08.2016 IN OPMV NO.158 OF 2015 OF
             MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE

APPELLANT/PETITIONER :-

             MUHAMMED ASHRAF @ ASHRAF
             S/O KUNHAMMED,RESIDING AT PANDARATHODI
             HOUSE,OLAVATOOR.P.O,MALAPPURAM-673638.

             BY ADV SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :-

    *1       MUHAMMED, S/O.SAIDALAVI, (DELETED)
             RESIDING AT THAZHEPARAMBATH
             HOUSE,P.O.PULPETTA,MALAPPURAM-673640.

             * RESPONDENT NO. 1 DELETED RESPONDENT NO.1 DELETED
             AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED
             22/06/2022 IN I.A 1/2022 IN MACA 1435/2017.

    2        RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.KEERAN,
             RESIDING AT CHERUTHODIPURAYIL HOUSE,
             P.O.OLAVATTOOR, MALAPPURAM-673638.

    3        UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
             D O :WHITE LINES BUILDING,KALLAI ROAD,
             KOZHIKODE-673002.

             BY ADV S.K.AJAY KUMAR


     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING         BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 03.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 MACA NO. 1435 OF 2017

                                        2

                                                                 2025:KER:9388

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.158/2015 on the file of the Principal

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, 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 25.06.2014. According to the

petitioner, on 25.06.2014 at about 7.30 a.m., while he was riding the

motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-10-AB-3615 from Kondotty to

Puthiyedapthuparambu, another motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-

10AC-3809 owned by the 1st respondent and negligently driven by the 2 nd

respondent hit on his motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the petitioner

sustained serious injuries.

3. The 1st respondent is the owner and the 3rd 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.

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.

MACA NO. 1435 OF 2017

2025:KER:9388

5. The evidence in the case consists of documentary evidence

Exts.A1 to A9 and Ext.C1. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a

total compensation of Rs.3,54,575/-.

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.A.V.M.Salahuddeen, the learned Counsel appearing for

the petitioner and Sri.S.K.Ajayakumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the

insurance respondent.

10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid 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 a business man, earning

Rs.20,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.9,000/-.

11. The petitioner could not prove his income from business, as

claimed in the OP. As per the dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance MACA NO. 1435 OF 2017

2025:KER:9388

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

year 2014 will come to Rs.9,500/-. Since from Ext.A9, it is revealed that the

petitioner was paying professional tax for conducting business, his notional

income is fixed at Rs.10,000/-, for the purpose of computing the loss of

disability.

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

"(1) Galaezzi fracture (Rt) (2) Multiple abrasion on (Rt) knee".

13. As per Ext.C1 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board,

the permanent physical disability of the petitioner was assessed as 18% and the

same was accepted as such by the Tribunal. Therefore, I do not find any

grounds to interfere with the percentage of disability of the petitioner as fixed

by the Tribunal.

14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 40 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 15, as held in Sarla

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

above circumstance, the loss of disability will come to Rs.4,05,000/-.

15. Towards loss of income, the tribunal has awarded only MACA NO. 1435 OF 2017

2025:KER:9388

Rs.27,000/- @ Rs.9,000/- being the income for 3 months. Since his notional

income was re-fixed at Rs.10000/-, towards loss of income the petitioner is

entitled to get a sum of Rs.30,000/-(10,000 x 3 months).

16. Towards the head 'pain and sufferings', the Tribunal has awarded

Rs.15,000/-. Towards loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- was awarded and towards

extra nourishment no amount was awarded by the Tribunal. According to the

learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on the heads pain

and suffering and loss of amenities are on the lower side.

17. The petitioner sustained serious injuries in the accident and was

treated as inpatient for 6 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 loss of amenities are on the lower side and hence they are

enhanced to Rs.25,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. Considering the entire

facts, Rs.3,000/- can be granted under the head extra nourishment.

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 petitioner/ appellant is entitled to get a total

compensation of Rs.4,88,975/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in MACA NO. 1435 OF 2017

2025:KER:9388

the table below, for easy reference.

Sl.

      No.           Head of Claim          Amount awarded Amount Awarded
                                           by Tribunal (in  in Appeal
                                                Rs.)         (in Rs.)
       1     Loss of earning                   27000             30000

       2     Transport to hospital              2000              2000

       3     Hospitallisation for 3 days        2400              2400

       4     Medical bills                      4931              4931

       5     Future treatment                   1644              1644

       6     Pain and sufferings               15000             25000

       7     Loss of amenities                 10000             15000

       8     Extra nourishment                  Nil               3000

       9     Compensation for disability       291600            405000

                       TOTAL                   354575            488975

             Amount enhanced                            134400

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

No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.4,88,975/- (Rupees Four Lakh

Eighty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Five Only), less the amount

already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 9% per annum, excluding MACA NO. 1435 OF 2017

2025:KER:9388

interest for a period of 117 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, from

the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, with proportionate costs, within a

period of two months from today. (interest for the enhanced amount is limited

to 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.