Kerala High Court
Mayilathal vs The Head Master, Indian Matriculation ... on 10 February, 2025
MACA. No.1812/2018
1
2025:KER:11431
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. 1812 OF 2018
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 26.09.2017 IN OPMV NO.1267 OF
2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MAYILATHAL
AGED 68 YEARS,W/O. AMMASIO GOUNDER,
153/5,UMMATHUMPADI,PUDUR GRAMA
PANCHAYAT,MELEMATHUMPADY,
PUDUR, PALAKKAD.
BY ADV SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
1 THE HEAD MASTER,
INDIAN MATRICULATION SCHOOL
KOOTTATHARA POST, PALAKKAD 678 581
(R.C OWNER OF THE VEHICLE REG.NO.KL 04/A 484)
2 RAMU C.A
AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. ARMUGHA THEVAR,
SOORIYA NIVAS,CHEERAKKADAVU,
PUTHUR POST, PALAKKAD 678 005.
(DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE REG. NO.KL 04/A 484)
MACA. No.1812/2018
2
2025:KER:11431
3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD
MALABAR FORT BUILDING,
OLD KANDATH COMPLEX, G.B ROAD, PALAKKAD,
(POLICY NO. 1012053113P103492428 PERIOD OF
INSURANCE 06-09-2013 TO 05-09-2014)
(INSURER OF THE VEHICLE REG. NO. KL 04/A 484)
COMMUNICATION ADDRESS
PAZHAYERI PLAZA,
KODATHIPADI, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD 678 582.
BY ADVS.
K.KESAVANKUTTY
SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD
SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 10.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA. No.1812/2018
3
2025:KER:11431
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2025
The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1267/2014 on the file of the 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 11.11.2013. According to the
petitioner, on 11.11.2013 at about 8.30 a.m., while she was walking through
the right side of the road, she was hit down by and LMV bearing registration
No.KL-04A-484 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner
and as a result of which she sustained serious injuries.
3. The 1st respondent is the RC owner , the 2 nd respondent is the driver
and 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
2025:KER:11431
offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is
Rs.1223000/-.
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 documentary evidence
Exts.A1 to A15 series and C1. 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.3,61,757/- 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. V.A. Johnson, the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner/appellant, and Sri. John Joseph Vettikkad, the learned Standing
Counsel for the 3rd respondent.
2025:KER:11431
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 working as Coolie, earning
Rs.4,000/- per month, and the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at
Rs.4,000/-.
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 2013 will come to Rs.9,000/-. 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.9,000/-, 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.9,000/-.
12. In the accident, the petitioner sustained the following injuries:
" fracture zygomatic arch,
2025:KER:11431
fracture maxilliary sinus,
fracture lateral wall of the orbit on the right side
Haemorrhagic contusion in the right frontal region
Crush injury right foot
Degloving injury with skin loss on dorsum with exposed
tendon and bone
Right big toe and 2nd finger in the right leg amputated
Speaking efficiency lost."
13. As per Exhibit C1 disability certificate issued by the medical board
the petitioner suffered 28% 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 interfere with the same. Therefore, the
permanent physical disability of the petitioner is accepted as 28%, as fixed by
the Tribunal.
14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 65 years.
Therefore, no 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 7, as held in Sarla Verma v.
Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. In the above
2025:KER:11431
circumstances, the loss of disability will come to Rs.2,11,680/-. Since future
prospects was considered along with loss of disability, separate compensation
given under the head "loss of future earning power" will be deducted.
15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.32,000/-
being the income for 8 months @Rs.4000/- . Since the notional income of the
petitioner is re-fixed at Rs. 9,000/-, towards loss of earning he is entitled to
get a sum of Rs.72,000/- (9000x8months)
16. Towards the head 'pain and sufferings', the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.40,000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs. 25,000/- 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 16 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 of life' are on the lower side and
hence they are enhanced to Rs1,00,000/-, and Rs.50,000/- respectively.
18. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as
2025:KER:11431
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.6,31,237/-, 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 32,000/- 72,000/-(9000x8)
2 Transportation 5,000/- 5,000/-
3 Damage to clothing & articles 1,000/- 1.000/-
4 Extra nourishment 6,000/- 6,000/-
5 Bystander expenses 4,800/- 4,800/-
6 Treatment expenses 180757 1,80,757/-
7 Pain and suffering 40,000/- 1,00,000/-
8 Loss of future earning power 67,200/- Nil
9 Compensation for disability Nil 2,11,680/-
10 Loss of amenities 25,000/- 50,000/-
Total 3,61,757/- 6,31,237/-
Enhanced Rs.2,69,480/-
20. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No. 3
is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs. 6,31,237/- (Rupees six lakh thirty one
thousand two hundred and thirty seven 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, excluding interest for a period
2025:KER:11431
of 105 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%) .
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.
