Kerala High Court
Sukumaran Nair vs The Divisional Manager on 24 February, 2025
2025:KER:17497
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. 2199 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 26.02.2015 IN OPMV NO.410
OF 2012 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM.
APPELLANT:
SUKUMARAN NAIR,
S/O. BHASKARAKURUP, AMBATTU HOUSE,
MALAKUNNAM P.O., NEAR ILLAMKAVU TEMPLE,
ITHITHANAM, KURICHY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.M.JOSHI
SMT.SIJI K.PAUL
RESPONDENTS:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 11.
BY ADV SRI.K.B.RAMANAND
SMT. DHANYA BABU M.B- FOR RES.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 24.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A No.2199 of 2015
2025:KER:17497
-2-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2025
The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.410/2012 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kottayam 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 12.08.2011.
According to the petitioner, on 12.08.2011 at about 7 p.m., while he was
walking through the foot path, a car bearing Registration No.KL-7/AW-52
driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit him down.
As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained injuries.
3. The 2nd 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. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.11,88,000/-
limited to Rs.7,00,000/-.
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 documentary
2025:KER:17497
evidence Exts.A1 to A6 and X1. 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.2,25,900/- 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.P.M.Joshi, the learned Counsel appearing for
the petitioner/appellant, and Smt.Dhanya Babu M.B, the learned Standing
Counsel for the 3rd 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 working as
lottery ticket vendor, earning Rs.7,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed
his monthly income at Rs.5,000/-. 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
2025:KER:17497
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 2011 will come to Rs.8,000/-. Since the petitioner could
not prove his job or income as claimed in the OP, in the light of a dictum
laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ramachandrappa (supra) , his notional income is liable to be fixed as
that of a coolie, at Rs.8,000/-.
12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following
injuries:
i) Head injury;
ii) Hemorrhagic contusion left temporal lobe;
iii) UMN facial palsy;
iv) Sub arachnoid haemorrhage;
v) Lacerated wound over vertex;
vi) abrasion over (L) elbow, (R) ankle, and left knee, and
vii) Abrasion over (L) chest.
13. Ext.X1 disability certificate shows that the petitioner
suffered 11% permanent physical disability. It was issued by the medical
board. 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 11%, as fixed by the Tribunal.
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
2025:KER:17497
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.1,84,800/-.
15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only
Rs.30,000/- being the income for 6 months @Rs.5,000/- . 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
8 months. Therefore, towards 'loss of income' the petitioner is entitled to
get a sum of Rs.64,000/- (8,000 x 8 months).
16. Towards the head 'pain and sufferings', the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.50,000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.40,000/- was
awarded, towards bystander expense Rs.6,000/- was awarded and towards
'extra nourishment' Rs.3,000/- 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 97 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', 'loss of amenities of life',
'bystander expense' and 'extra nourishment' are on the lower side and
hence they are enhanced to Rs.60,000/-, 50,000/-, 15,000/- and 6,000/-
respectively.
2025:KER:17497
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.3,84,300/-, 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 earnings 30,000/- 64,000/-
2 Transport to hospital 1,000/- 1,000/-
3 Extra nourishment 3,000/- 6,000/-
4 Damage to clothing and 1,000/- 1,000/-
articles
5 Medical expenses 2,500/- 2,500/-
6 Bystander expenses 6,000/- 15,000/-
7 Pain and suffering 50,000/- 60,000/-
8 Compensation for 92,400/- 1,84,800/-
permanent disability
9 Loss of amenities 40,000/- 50,000/-
Total 2,25,900/- 3,84,300/-
Enhanced 1,58,400/-
20. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and
Respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.3,84,300/-
(Rupees three lakhs eighty four thousand and three hundred Only), less the
2025:KER:17497
amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum,
from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, with proportionate
costs, within a period of two months from today.
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.
Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR,
JUDGE
ADS
