Kerala High Court

Chandra Babu vs K.N.Godasarman on 10 February, 2025

MACA.872/2014




                                   1
                                                 2025:KER:13144

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR

   MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 21ST MAGHA, 1946

                          MACA NO. 872 OF 2014

                OPMV NO.2877 OF 2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

                           TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR

APPELLANT/PETITIONER

            CHANDRA BABU (MINOR)
            S/O. LATE DHAN RAJ, AGED 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT
            POOVATHINGAL HOUSE, P.O. CHUNANGADU, OTTAPALAM,
            PALAKKAD DISTRICT.


            BY ADVS.
            SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
            SRI.A.R.NIMOD



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

     1      K.N.GODASARMAN,RESIDING AT KARIPPAL MANA,
            NEDUMPURA, CHERUTHURUTHY, THRISSUR - 679 531.

     2      DEVASSY,S/O. ANTONY, RESIDING AT ARANGASSERY
            HOUSE, ATHANI, WADAKANCHERY, THRISSUR - 680 771

     3      NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
            KOLLANNUR DEVASSY SAMARAK BUILDING, THRISSUR - 680
            001.


            BY ADVS.
            M.JITHESH MENON-R2
            SEBASTIAN VARGHESE-SC
 MACA.872/2014




                              2
                                            2025:KER:13144



      THIS MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 10.2.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 MACA.872/2014




                                     3
                                                       2025:KER:13144



                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 10th day of February, 2025

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.)No.2877/2004 on the file of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur is the appellant herein. The

respondents in the O.P. are the respondents herein. For the purpose of

convenience, the parties are hereinafter 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 15.4.2004.

According to the petitioner, on 15.4.2004 while he was riding pillion on

a motorcycle along the Kongadu - Pathiripala public road, from north to

south, a bus bearing registration No.KL 8F 2021 driven by the 2nd

respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the motorcycle in

which he was travelling and as a result of which, he sustained serious

injuries. The 1st respondent is the owner, and 3rd respondent is the insurer

of the offending vehicle.

2025:KER:13144

3. The 3rd respondent/insurer alone filed written statement.

Though the 3rd respondent admitted the accident a well as valid

insurance the policy, they had taken a contention that the accident

occurred due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motor

cycle.

4. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of PW1

and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A9, B1 and B2. After evaluating

the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of

Rs.4,25,518/- rounded off to 4,25,600/-.

5. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this appeal.

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

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is just and reasonable?

7. Heard Sri. A.R. Nimod, the learned Counsel appearing for the

appellant, and Sri. Sebastian Varghese, learned Standing Counsel for the

3rd respondent.

8. The Point: One of the contentions raised by the learned

2025:KER:13144

counsel for the petitioners is that the notional income of the petitioner

fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.1,500/-, is too meager. At the time of the

accident, the petitioner was aged 16 and he was an Xth standard student.

9. In the accident, the petitioner sustained the following injuries:

"1. Type III C compound comminuted fracture (R) femur

2. Type III B compound comminuted fracture both bones (R) leg

3. Type III B compound comminuted fracture calcaneum (R)

4. Femoral artery tear (R)

5. Subtrochanteric fracture (L) femur

6. Complete Degloving of skin and soft tissue on (R) thigh."

As per Exhibit A16 Disability certificate, the permanent whole body

disability of the petitioner was assessed at 43%. He was treated as

inpatient for a total period of 209 days. In the facts of this case,

considering the nature and gravity of the injuries sustained and the

percentage of disability suffered, the decision in Mallikarjun v.

Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd., (2014)14 SCC 396

will not be able to provide just and reasonable compensation to the

petitioner and hence multiplier method is to be adopted in this case.

10. The Tribunal has fixed the notional income of the petitioner

at Rs.1500/-, which is too meagre. In the above circumstances, his

2025:KER:13144

notional income is to be fixed on the basis of the dictum laid down by

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

Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236]. As per

the above decision, the income of a Coolie during the year 2004 will

come to Rs.4,500/- and as such the notional income of the petitioner is

fixed at Rs.4,500/-.

11. Since, on the date of accident, he was aged 16 years, 40% of

his income is to be added towards future prospects, and the multiplier to

be applied is 18, as held in the decision in National Insurance Co.Ltd v

Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]. Therefore, the compensation

towards loss of disability will come to Rs.5,85,144/-.

12. The petitioner was hospitalised for a period of 209 days on

account of the injuries sustained in the accident. Towards the head 'pain

and sufferings', the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- and no amount

was awarded towards loss of amenities. Considering the nature of

injuries sustained by the petitioner, the percentage of disability suffered

by him and the period during which he was treated as in-patient, I hold

that the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is on the

2025:KER:13144

lesser side, and hence, it is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-.

13. For the very same reasons, the petitioner is entitled to get a

reasonable compensation towards loss of amenities and I hold that a sum

of Rs.50,000/- will be a reasonable compensation towards loss of

amenities.

14. Though the petitioner was hospitalised for 209 days, no

compensation was awarded towards loss of studies. Considering the

facts, I hold that he is entitled to compensation towards loss of studies

and Rs.31,500/-(4500x7 months) is awarded on that head.

15. Towards extra nourishment, the tribunal has awarded only

Rs.10,000/- and hence it is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-.

16. Towards bystander's expense, the Tribunal has awarded

Rs.10,000/-. Considering the facts, bystanders expense is enhanced to

Rs.20,000/-

17. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

because of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the percentage of

disability suffered by him, the marriage prospects of the petitioner was

very much affected. Considering the percentage of disability suffered

2025:KER:13144

by the petitioner, towards marriage prospects, he is entitled to get a

reasonable compensation and I hold that Rs.50,000/- will be a

reasonable compensation 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 petitioner/ appellant is entitled to get a total

compensation of Rs.11,01,062/-, as modified and recalculated above and

given in the table below, for easy reference.


  Sl.    Head of claim                      Amount awarded         The amount given in
  No.                                       by the                 appeal (Rs.)
                                            Tribunal(Rs)
  1      Medical & miscellaneous expenses   2,28,918/-             2,28,918/
  2      Bystander expenses                 10,000/-               20,000/-
  3      Transportation expenses            10,000/-               10,000/-
  4      Extra nourishment                  10,000/-               25,000/-
  5      Damage to clothing etc.            500/-                  500/-
  6      Loss of studies                    Nil                    31,500/- (4500x7)
  7      Pain and suffering                 50,000/-               1,00,000/-
  8      Compensation for disability        1,16,100/-             5,85,144/-
  9      Loss of amenities                  Nil                    50,000/-
  10     Loss of marriage prospects                                50000
         Total                              4,25,518 rounded       1101062
                                            off to Rs.4,25,600/-

Amount enhanced Rs.6,75,462/- (1101062-425600)

In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3 rd respondent

2025:KER:13144

is directed to deposit a total compensation of Rs.11,01,062/- (Rupees

eleven lakh one thousand and sixty two only), less the amount already

deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of

the petition till realisation, excluding interest for a period of 932 days,

the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs, within

a period of two months from today.

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.