Kerala High Court

Lejo vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd on 11 March, 2025

                                                  2025:KER:22706


             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. 4310 OF 2017

     AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 08.05.2017 IN OPMV

NO.393   OF     2014   OF   MOTOR   ACCIDENT   CLAIMS   TRIBUNAL,

PERUMBAVOOR.

APPELLANT:

          LEJO,
          AGED 43 YEARS,
          S/O REV. FR.JOSEPH KARAMALA,
          KARAMALA HOUSE,ALLAPRA KARA,
          VENGOLA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.


          BY ADV SRI.ELSON SIMON

RESPONDENT:

          UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD,
          MMC XIX/642, KULANGARA TOWERS, MC ROAD,
          KACHERITHAZHAM, MUVATTUPUZHA,
          ERNAKULAM DIST- 686 661.

          BY ADV SMT.T.C.SOWMIAVATHY


     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 11.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 M.A.C.A.No.4310 of 2017

                                                            2025:KER:22706
                                    -2-

                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11th day of March, 2025

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.393/2014 on the file of the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor 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

19.01.2014. According to the petitioner, on 19.01.2014 at about 11.10

a.m, while he was riding a motorcycle along the Aluva-Munnar road, a

tempo traveller bearing Registration No.KL-35/B-5927 driven by the

1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down. As

a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries.

3. The 1st respondent is the driver cum owner and 2nd

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.7,20,000/- limited to Rs.4,00,000/-.

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 the oral

2025:KER:22706

testimonies of PW1 and PW2 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to

A14 and Ext.B1.

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.2,44,802/- 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.Elson Simon, the learned Counsel

appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and smt.T.C.Sowmiavathy, the

learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd 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 as fixed by the Tribunal.

According to him, the petitioner was working as Engineer in Concept

Engineering, earning Rs.7,500/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his

monthly income at Rs.6,000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer

would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable.

2025:KER:22706

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 2014 will come to

Rs.9,500/-. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for fixing the

notional income of the petitioner above that of a coolie. He examined

PW1 and also produced Ext.A10 to prove that he was working as a site

engineer. However, in the FIS statement, he claimed that, he was

employed abroad. It was in the above context, the tribunal disbelieved

the evidence of PW1 and also Ext.A10 certificate. However, in the

FIS, he had claimed that he had passed Plus two. In the above

circumstances, considering the fact he passed Plus two, I hold that,

his notional income can be fixed at Rs.10,000/-.

12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the

following injuries:

Deformity right ankle with abrasion, tenderness and oedema

and trimalleolar fracture with posterior dislocation right ankle.

13. As per Exhibit.A11 disability certificate the

petitioner suffered 9% permanent physical disability. It was issued by

an orthopaedic surgeon, who was examined as PW2. 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

2025:KER:22706

accepted as 9%, as fixed by the Tribunal.

14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 40

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 15, 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.2,02,500/-.

15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded

only Rs.30,000/- being the income for 5 months @Rs.6,000/-.

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 6 months. Therefore, towards 'loss of

income' the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.60,000/- (10,000 x

6 months).

16. Towards the head 'pain and sufferings', the

Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life'

Rs.20,000/- was awarded and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.1,500/-

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 14 days in 2 sessions.

Because of the injuries sustained, the percentage of disability suffered

2025:KER:22706

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' and 'extra nourishment' are on

the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.75,000/-, 50,000/-

and 5,000/- 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.4,58,602/-, as modified and

recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference:

Sl.

 No         Head of Claim         Amount awarded            Amount
  .                               by Tribunal (in         Awarded in
                                       Rs.)              Appeal (in Rs.)
  1 Loss of earning                      30,000/-              60,000/-
  2 Transport to hospital                3,000/-                3,000/-
  3 Extra nourishment                    1,500/-                5,000/-
  4 Payment to bystander                 3,500/-                3,500/-
  5 Damage to clothes                    1,000/-                1,000/-
  6 Medical expenses                     58,602/-              58,602/-
  7 Pain and sufferings                  30,000/-              75,000/-
  8 Loss of amenities etc.               20,000/-              50,000/-
  9 Permanent disability                 97,200/-             2,02,500/-
       Total                            2,44,802/-            4,58,602/-
       Enhanced Rs.2,13,800-


                                                          2025:KER:22706