Kerala High Court
Sivadas vs Arun Krishnan on 25 February, 2025
2025:KER:23535
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1946
MACA NO. 2012 OF 2014
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED IN OPMV NO.134 OF 2011 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOTTAYAM
APPELLANT:
SIVADAS
KAVUMPURATH HOUSE,
AYMANAM POST,KOTTAYAM
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY
RESPONDENTS:
1 ARUN KRISHNAN
VETTIKANAL HOUSE,KARUVAMKUZHI KARA,
KOOVAPPALLY VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM 686 518
2 SANJEEV MATHEW
KALAPPURACKAL HOUSE,POOVARANI POST,
PAIKA PALA 686 577
3 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD
KOTTAYAM 686 001
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.K MANOJ KUMAR -SC
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 2012 OF 2014 2
2025:KER:23535
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of February, 2025
The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 134/2011 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, 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 05.08.2010. According to the
petitioner, on 05.08.2010 at about 11.30 a.m., while he was riding a
motorycle , a bus bearing Reg.No. KL 35/A-4383 driven by the 1 st respondent
in rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle. As a result of the
accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries.
3. The 1st respondent is the driver , the 2nd 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.18,21,000 (limited to 15,00,000)
4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the
2025:KER:23535
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 A12 and X1 were marked.
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.2,94,700/- (rounded to Rs.2,95,000/-) 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. Mathew John, the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner/appellant, and Sri.P.K Manoj Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel
for the 3rd respondent.
10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid insurance
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
2025:KER:23535
as fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the petitioner was working as
Poojari, earning Rs.10,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly
income at Rs.5000/-. 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 2010 will come to Rs.7500/-. 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.7500/-.
12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries:
"He sustained type I Thompson epstein fracture dislocation of
right hip, type II open tibial condyle fracture right, fracture right
shatzker type VI, fracture clavicle of scapula right and fracture
P1 of right little finger."
13. As per Exhibit X1 disability certificate the petitioner suffered
24% 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 24%, as
2025:KER:23535
fixed by the Tribunal.
14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 46 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 13, 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.3,51,000/-
15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only
Rs.20,000/- being the income for 4 months @Rs.500/-. 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 6
months. Therefore, towards 'loss of income' the petitioner is entitled to get a
sum of Rs.45,000/- (7500 x 6 months).
16. Towards the head 'pain and sufferings', the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.25,000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs. 30,000/- was
awarded, towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.2,000/- and towards 'bystander
expenses' Rs. 9,000/- 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
2025:KER:23535
and was treated as inpatient for 67 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', 'extra nourishment' and
'bystander expenses' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.
75,000/-, 50,000/-, 10,000/- and 15,000/- respectively.
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.5,67,500/-, 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 Rs.20,000/- Rs.45,000/-
2 Transport to hospital Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/-
3 Extra nourishment Rs.2,000/- Rs.10,000/-
4 Damage to clothings Rs.500/- Rs.500/-
5 Bystander expenses Rs.9,000/- Rs.15,000/-
6 Medical expenses Rs.19,000/- Rs.19,000/-
7 Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/- Rs.75,000/-
8 Loss of amenities and Rs.30,000/- Rs.50,000/-
inconvenience in life and also for
discomforts and disability
2025:KER:23535
9 Loss of earning capacity Rs.1,87,200/- Rs.3,51,000/-
Total Rs.2,94,700/-(rounded to Rs.5,67,500/-
2,95,000)
Enhanced Rs.2,72,500/-
20. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and 3rd respondent
is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.5,67,500/- (Rupees Five lakhs sixty
seven thousand five hundred 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, 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
vnk/-
