2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal
The appellant/claimant, claiming to be a homemaker and
tailoress, met with a road traffic accident on 28.05.2015, while
travelling in a bus bearing Reg.No.KL-15-6526 towards Quilandy
and when they reached near Asha Hospital, it dashed against a bus
bearing Reg.No.KL-18-E-3537 and thereby the appellant sustained
severe injuries. Immediately, she was taken to Asha Hospital,
Vatakara and thereafter referred to Baby Memorial Hospital,
Kozhikode. She suffered serious injuries and was treated as an
inpatient for 98 days. She further contended that she was drawing
2025:KER:20778
a monthly income of Rs.15,000/- and in support of the said claim
produced Exts.A1 to A21 documents. The appellant was also
examined by the Medical Board, which issued Ext.C1 certificate
dated 17.03.2015, which showed permanent disability at 21%.
Exts.X1 and X2 were also marked, which are the records of Baby
Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode, which shows that the appellant
underwent implant of materials to overcome the serious fractures
suffered by her. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on
the side of the Insurance Company. The Tribunal, on appreciation
of evidence, found that the claimant could not adduce evidence to
prove that she was earning a monthly income of Rs.15,000/-.
Therefore, the Tribunal proceeded to fix the income notionally at
Rs.8,000/- and granted the following compensation:
articles
6 Pain and suffering 10,00,000/- 1,00,000/-
2025:KER:20778
7 Loss of amenities and Nil 1,00,000/-
enjoyment of life
8 Permanent disability 5,00,000/- 2,21,760/-
9 Loss of earning power 5,00,000/- Nil
10 Future treatment expenses 10,00,000/- 25,000/-
11 Compensation for 5,00,000/- Nil
inconvenience
12 Attendance at home Nil 27,000/-
13 Mental shock and agony 3,00,000/- Nil
Total limited to 49,30,000/- 12,48,375/- Rounded to
30,00,000/- 12,48,400/-
3. Aggrieved by the insufficiency in the grant of
compensation, the claimant has approached this Court in the
present appeal.
4. Heard, Sri.Zubair Pulikool - learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant, Smt.Latha Susan Cherian - learned
counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, Sri.Alex Antony Sebastian
- learned counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent and Sri.P.Jacob
Mathew - learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent .
5. On a consideration of the rival submissions raised across
the Bar, this Court finds that the income fixed by the Tribunal is
apparently on a lower side. In Kirti and another v. Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. [(2021) 2 SCC 166], the Hon'ble
2025:KER:20778
Supreme Court held that when an income of a homemaker is being
fixed by the Tribunal, the same shall not be fixed below that of a
Coolie Worker. In Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC
236], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had formulated the principles for
the purpose of fixing the monthly income of the claimants while
considering the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988. In Angad Tiwari and Another v. National
Insurance Company Ltd. and Another [Civil Appeal
No.10950/2024] [2024 KHC 8590], the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that while fixing the notional income, the Tribunal shall not fix
the same below that of the minimum wage.
6. In the light of the peculiar facts of the present case, the
income of the claimant cannot fixed in terms of the minimum wage
because she is a homemaker and was working as a tailoress. The
statement of the claimant that she was working as a tailoress stood
unequivocally proved. In the absence of any contra-evidence
adduced on the side of the Insurance Company, this Court is of the
considered view that the claimant/appellant is entitled to have her
notional income fixed slightly over that of a Coolie Worker.
2025:KER:20778
7. In V.Prabhakaran v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
[MACA No.243/2021 decided on 04.12.2024], this Court had
occasion to consider the very same question and held that insofar
as the income of a homemaker and tailoress is concerned, an
amount of Rs.15,000/- is a reasonable amount to be fixed as a
notional income.
8. In Sanjay Kumar v. Ashok Kumar and Another
[2014 (5) SCC 330], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even
without any documentary evidence the claim for income can be
accepted, if the same is reasonable going by the living standards at
the relevant point of time. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation
to conclude that the claimant is entitled to have her income fixed at
Rs.15,000/-.
9. Coming to the non-conventional heads also, the
claimant is entitled for a reasonable enhancement considering the
nature of injuries suffered by her. As evident from the records and
also the findings rendered by the Tribunal under Issue No.2, the
claimant had the suffered the following injuries:
1. Fracture distal femur comminuted open type 3A
2. Fracture both bones distal 1/3rd comminuted open type 11.
3. Soft tissue injury right lower limb.
2025:KER:20778
4. Lacerated wound forehead (left).
5. Infected hemetoma (right) tibia.
6. Raw area (right) leg and ankle.
Therefore, in the light of these compelling facts, this Court is of the
considered view that under the non-conventional heads also the
claimant is entitled for a reasonable enhancement, especially since
the claimant had to undergo inpatient treatment for 98 days.
In the result, the appellant is entitled to succeed. The appeal
is thus allowed. The appellant is entitled for enhanced
compensation as follows:
Heads Amount awarded Total Enhanced amount
by the Tribunal compensation of compensation
awarded in
appeal
Notional income of the appellant is fixed at Rs.15,000/-.
Loss of earnings 96,000/- 1,80,000/- 84,000/-
[15000x12]
Extra nourishment 78,400/- 93,400/- 15,000/-
& Bystander's [93400-78400]
expenses
Pain and sufferings 1,00,000/- 1,15,000/- 15,000/-
[115000-100000]
Loss of amenities & 1,00,000/- 1,15,000/- 15,000/-
enjoyment of life [115000-100000]
Future treatment 25,000/- 50,000/- 25,000/-
expenses [50000-25000]
Permanent disability 2,21,760/- 4,15,800/- 1,94,040/-
[15000x11x12x21/ [415800-221760]
100]
Total enhanced amount of compensation 3,48,040/-
2025:KER:20778
Accordingly, the appellant/claimant is awarded an additional
compensation of Rs.3,48,040/- (Rupees three lakhs forty eight
thousand forty only) over and above the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition
till realization together with proportionate costs. The 3rd respondent
- Insurance Company is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment. While, calculating interest, it is ordered that the
appellants will not be entitled for interest for a period of 522 days,
which represents the period of delay in filing the appeal.
The appeal is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
ACR
