Kerala High Court
C.Sasi vs Sunitha on 27 January, 2025
MACA. No.1658/2014
1
2025:KER:7021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 7TH MAGHA, 1946
MACA NO. 1658 OF 2014
OPMV NO.407 OF 2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD
APPELLANT/PETITIONER
C.SASI, AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.CHAMI, KOLLAMPPOTTA, PALLASSENA VILLAGE,
CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD-678 505.
BY ADV SRI.T.K.SANDEEP
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
1 SUNITHA, AGED 31 YEARS,
W/O.LATE SUKUMARAN, D/O.KESAVAN, AYROTT HOUSE,
KAVALAPARA, VITHINASSERY, NOW RESIDING AT
KACHERIPADAM HOUSE, VITHINASSERY P.O., NEMMARA,
CHITTUR TALUK, PALKKAD-678 508.
2 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
SHOBA TSM COMPLEX, R.S.ROAD, PALAKKAD-678 592.
BY ADVS.
BABY MATHEW
SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR-SC
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 27.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA. No.1658/2014
2
2025:KER:7021
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th day of january, 2025
The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.407 of 2010 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad is the appellant herein. )
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 22.9.2009. According to the
petitioner, on 22.9.2009 at about 6.30 p.m., a motor cycle hit against his two
wheeler at Thoottode and as a result of the accident, he sustained injuries. The
rider of the second motor cycle died in the accident.
3. The 1st respondent is the wife of the deceased rider, the 2nd
respondent is the insurer of the vehicle which was owned by the deceased.
According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the rashness and
negligence of the deceased. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P.
is Rs.1,80,000/-.
4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the
2025:KER:7021
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 A13 and B1.
6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a
total compensation of Rs.34,247/-.
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.K. Sandeep, the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner/appellant, and Sri. S.K. Ajay Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel
for the 2nd 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 running a photo studio,
2025:KER:7021
earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at
Rs.3,500/-.
11. 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 v. Manger, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], his notional income is liable to be
fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.7,000/-.
12. In the accident the petitioner sustained Degloving injury on the
right big toe and fracture of P1 of right little finger.As per Ext.A12 disability
certificate, his permanent disability is 5%.
13. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 35 years.
Therefore, 40% 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 16, 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.94,080/-.
14. Towards loss of income, the tribunal has awarded only Rs10,500
being the income for 3 months @ Rs.3500/-. Considering the nature of the
2025:KER:7021
injuries sustained and the percentage of disability suffered by by the
petitioner, I hold that the petitioner might have lost income at least for a
period of 3 months. Therefore, towards loss of income the petitioner is
entitled to get a sum of Rs.21,000/-(7000x 3 months).
15. Towards the head 'pain and sufferings', the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.10,000/- and Towards loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- was awarded.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation
awarded on those heads are on the lower side.
16. The petitioner sustained serious injuries in the accident and was
treated as inpatient for 5 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, extra nourishment, Trasportation and
'damage to clothing' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to
Rs.25,000/-,Rs.15,000/-, Rs.2000/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively.
17. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as
the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable.
18. Therefore, the total compensation due to the petitioner will come
2025:KER:7021
to Rs.1,62,077/-, 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 earnings 10,500/- 21,000/-
2 Medical expenses 2,297/- 2,297/-
3 Bystander expenses 700/- 700/-
4 Damage to clothing etc. 250/- 1,000/-
5 Transportation 500/- 1,000/-
6 Extra nourishment Nil 2,000/-
7 Pain and suffering 10,000/- 25,000/-
8 Loss of amenities 10,000/- 15,000/-
9 Loss of disability Nil 94,080/-
Total 20,790/- 1,62,077/-
Enhanced compensation Rs.1,41,287/-
19. The Tribunal found that there is 50% contributory negligence on
the part of the petitioner. The same is not challenged. In the above
circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.81,039/- alone,
being 50% of total compensation.
20. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.2
is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.81,039/- (Rupees Eighty One
Thousand and Thirty Nine Only), less the amount already deposited, if any,
along with the interest at the rate ordered by the Tribunal @ 9% per annum,
2025:KER:7021
from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, with proportionate costs,
within a period of two months from today. (Interest for the enhanced
compensation is limited to 8%)., the
Tribunal shall disburse the Sd/- the petitioner,
C. Pratheep Kumar, Judge
sou.
