K.D. Pramod vs K.H. Aliyar
2025 Latest Caselaw 4437 Ker

Kerala High Court

K.D. Pramod vs K.H. Aliyar on 24 February, 2025

                                                 2025:KER:17056
MACA NO.1294 OF 2013
                                  1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR

 MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1946

                       MACA NO. 1294 OF 2013

        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPMV NO.636 OF 2006

OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL & SPECIAL COURT FOR E.C.ACT

                          CASES, THRISSUR

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

            K.D. PRAMOD
            AGED 50 YEARS
            S/O.LATE DAMODARAN, RESIDING AT KALAPPURAKKAL
            HOUSE, NEAR KARUNA THEATRE THALIKULAM P.O.,
            THRISSUR DISTRICT.

           BY ADVS.
           SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
           SRI.A.R.NIMOD
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1       K.H. ALIYAR
            S/O.HASSAN, RESIDING AT KAROTHUKUZHY HOUSE,
            PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683542.

    2       PINTO
            AGED 29 YEARS
            S/O.PRAKASAN, RESIDING AT VAZHAKKULATHU HOUSE,
            THRITHALLUR, VATANAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-
            680619.

    3       THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
            S.S.N.SHOPPING COMPLEX, TEMPLE ROAD, NATTIKA,
                                               2025:KER:17056
MACA NO.1294 OF 2013
                             2

         P.O.TRIPRAYAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680567.

         BY ADV SMT.M.HEMALATHA


     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                 2025:KER:17056
MACA NO.1294 OF 2013
                                         3

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.636/ 2006 on the file of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, 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 13.11.2005. According

to the petitioner, on 13.11.2005 at about 3.15 p.m., while he was driving an

autorickshaw through Kodungalloor-Guruvayoor road, a car bearing reg.no.

KL-17/A 6350 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner,

hit against the autorickshaw and consequently it dashed against another car

and as a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained injuries.

3. The 1st respondent is the owner, 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 offending vehicle. The

quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.2,70,000/-.

2025:KER:17056 MACA NO.1294 OF 2013

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 A15. 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.75,705/- rounded off to Rs.75,710/- 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.T.C.Suresh Menon, the learned Counsel

appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Smt.M. Hemalatha, the learned

Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent.

2025:KER:17056 MACA NO.1294 OF 2013

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 an

autorickshaw driver, earning Rs.5000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his

monthly income at Rs.3000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue

that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable.

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 2005 will come to Rs.5000/-. Therefore, the petitioner

being an autorickshaw driver by profession, inorder to award just and

reasonable compensation, his notional income is fixed at Rs.6000/-, for the

purpose of computing the loss of disability.

12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following

injuries:

contusion on right shoulder, right chest side, abrasion on left frontal area, lacerated wound left forearm, 7th rib on right with premothorax, cerebral concussion, fracture on right scapula.

2025:KER:17056 MACA NO.1294 OF 2013

13. Ext. A11 disability certificate shows that the petitioner

suffered 4% permanent physical disability. It was issued by the medical

board. The Tribunal, however, scaled down the percentage of disability of the

petitioner to 2%, without assigning valid and cogent reasons. The law is

settled that, if the Tribunal is not satisfied with the disability certificate

produced by the petitioner, the remedy is to refer him to a medical board or

higher Authority.(See Manikantan G. v. Janardhanan Nair and Others,

2021 (5)KHC 305). Having not done so, the Tribunal was not justified in

scaling down the percentage of disability from what is shown in the disability

certificate. I do find any grounds to disbelieve the said disability and as such

the permanent physical disability of the petitioner is fixed as 4%.

14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 44 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 14, 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.50,400/-.

15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded

Rs.9000/- being the income for 3 months @Rs.3000/-. Since the notional 2025:KER:17056 MACA NO.1294 OF 2013

income of the petitioner is re-fixed at Rs.6000/-, towards loss of earning, he is

entitled to get a sum of Rs.18,000/-(6000x3 months)

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

awarded Rs.14000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.12000/- 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 serious injuries in the accident

and was treated as inpatient for 11 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 Rs.30,000/-, and Rs.20,000/- respectively.

18. Towards 'Extra nourishment', no amount was granted by

the tribunal. Considering the entire facts, I am inclined to grant Rs.2000/-

towards 'Extra nourishment'.

19. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other

heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and

reasonable.

20. Therefore, the petitioners/ appellants are entitled to get a 2025:KER:17056 MACA NO.1294 OF 2013

total compensation of Rs.1,51,025/-, as modified and recalculated above and

given in the table below, for easy reference.

Sl.

  No            Head of Claim      Amount awarded by      Amount Awarded
   .                                 Tribunal (in Rs.)         in Appeal
                                                                (in Rs.)

  1 Loss of earning                        9000                 18000
  2 Medical expenses                       26425                26425
  3 Bystander expenses                     2200                  2200
  4 Transportation                         2000                  2000
  5 Extra nourishment                       Nil                  2000
  6 Pain and sufferings                    14000                30000
  7 Loss of disability                     10080                50400
  8 Loss of amenities                      12000                20000
        Total                      75,705 (rounded to          1,51,025
                                        75,710)
        Enhanced/reduced                             75315

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

Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.1,51,025/- (Rupees

One Lakhs Fifty One Thousand and Twenty Five Only), less the amount

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

of the petition till deposit/realisation, excluding interest for a period of 140 2025:KER:17056 MACA NO.1294 OF 2013

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

a period of two months from today.

22. 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 Pvv