Kerala High Court
Abdulla M.T vs Krishnaprasad on 11 March, 2025
2025:KER:24703
MACA NO.1116 OF 2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1946
MACA NO. 1116 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 04.12.2014 IN OPMV
NO.654 OF 2010 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ABDULLA M.T.
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O.MOHAMMED KUNHI, ERMALA VALIYAMOOLA
HOUSE,P.O.ALAMPADY, KASARGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.P.HARISH
KUM.K.SASIKALA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 KRISHNAPRASAD
AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.T.RAMAKRISHNA,
CHATTANCHAL,THEKKIL POST, CHENGALA VIA, KASARAGOD,
PIN.671541
2 K.M. SHAFI SO.MOHAMMED
BHARATH JUICE CENTRE, BHARATH BUILDING,ALAKE,
MANGALORE DISTRICT - 400 038.
3 THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,KASARAGOD
BRANCH, GOKUL BUILDING, M.G.ROAD,KASARAGOD. 671
121.
2025:KER:24703
MACA NO.1116 OF 2015
2
BY ADV P.K.BABU
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:24703
MACA NO.1116 OF 2015
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.654/2010 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod, 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 29.10.2009. According to the
petitioner, on 29.10.2009 at about 12.00 p.m., while he was riding a
motorcycle, a car bearing reg.no.KL-19A MD 7851 driven by the 1st
respondent in a rash and negligent manner, knocked him down and 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.5,00,000/-.
2025:KER:24703
MACA NO.1116 OF 2015
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 documentary evidence
Exts.A1 to A6. 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.1,57,000/- 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.K.P. Harish, the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner/appellant, and Sri.P.K.Babu, the learned Standing Counsel for the
3rd respondent.
10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid
2025:KER:24703
MACA NO.1116 OF 2015
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 as fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the petitioner was a fish
monger, earning Rs.9000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly
income at Rs.4000/-. 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 2009 will come to Rs.7000/-. 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.7000/-.
12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following
injuries:
• Local examination of the RT leg
• Swelling and tenderness + over the distal 3rd of the leg.
• Abnormal mobility and crepitus+anke movements are
painful and restricted.
2025:KER:24703
MACA NO.1116 OF 2015
• Local examination of the left ankle and leg
• sperficial abrasions over the knee.
• Wound of around 8 cm+ over the medial aspect of the ankle.
• Distal tibia is exposed and contaminated.
• Posterior tibial artery could not be felt.
• Dorsalis pedis felt
• avulsion of the 1st and 2nd toe nails.
• Abrasions+ over the chest and forehead.
13. In this case the petitioner has not produced any disability
certificate before the Tribunal. The learned counsel would submits that
though application was filed, the Tribunal has not entertained the same as it
was filed belatedly. During the pendency of this appeal, at the instance of the
appellant, he was examined by a medical board and the medical board after
examination issued a certificate assessing his permanent disability at 52%. It
is marked as Ext.C1, for reference. Since it was issued by medical board,
constituted by the Superintendent Medical College Hospital, Kannur,
Pariyaram, I do not find any grounds to disbelieve the same and as such his
permanent disability is fixed as 52%.
14. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would contend that
since the petitioner has not produced the disability certificate before the
2025:KER:24703
MACA NO.1116 OF 2015
Tribunal, the percentage of disability as noted in Ext.C1 disability certificate
issued by the medical board is to be reduced. The petitioner appeared in
person and it appears that he is still walking with the help of crutches. After
examining the petitioner I do not find any grounds to reduce the percentage of
disability of the petitioner as assessed by the medical board in Ext.C1.
15. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 33 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.978432/-.
16. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only
Rs.20,000/- being the income for 5 months @Rs4000/-. 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. 56000/- (7000 x 8 months).
2025:KER:24703
MACA NO.1116 OF 2015
17. Towards the head 'pain and sufferings', the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.15000/-. Towards 'Bystander expenses' Rs.3000/- was awarded
and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.1500/- was awarded. According to the
learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads
are on the lower side.
18. The petitioner sustained very serious injuries in the accident
and was treated as inpatient for 25 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', 'Bystander expenses' and 'extra nourishment' are on the
lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.5000/- and
Rs.5000/-. respectively.
19. Towards 'loss of amenities', the tribunal has not awarded any
amount. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
Rs.70000/- is awarded on the aforesaid head.
20. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads,
as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and
reasonable.
2025:KER:24703
MACA NO.1116 OF 2015
21. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total
compensation of Rs.13,31,932/-, 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 Transport charges (Mangalore) 2500 2500
2 Damage to clothing 1000 1000
3 Loss of earning for 5 months 20000 56000
4 Bystander expense for one 3000 5000
month
5 Extra nourishment charges 1500 5000
6 Medical expense 114000 114000
7 Pain and suffering 15000 100000
8 Loss of amenities Nil 70000
9 Loss of disability Nil 978432
Total 157000 1331932
Enhanced /Reduced Rs. 196500
22. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent
No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.13,31,932/- (Rupees Thirteen
Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Two only), less the
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.
On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the
2025:KER:24703
MACA NO.1116 OF 2015
entire amount to the petitioner, excluding court fee payable, if any, without
delay, as per rules.
Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR,
JUDGE
Pvv
