Kerala High Court

The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Marimuthu on 12 March, 2025

MACA. No.3269/2015




                                 1
                                               2025:KER:25103

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
 WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1946
                       MACA NO. 3269 OF 2015
         AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 29.06.2015 IN OPMV NO.143 OF
        2013 OF IV ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., PATHANAMTHITTA

APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:

             THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
             PATHNAMTHITTA NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
             REGIONAL OFFICE,M.G. ROAD, KOCHI-11

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)-SC
             SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW


RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

             MARIMUTHU
             S/O CHINNASWAMI NADAR, SEBBA EHAVANAM,
             DOOR NO. 241/30 AZ, GANDHI NAGAR, CHETTIYARPETTI
             VILLAGE, REJAPALAYAM,
             TAMILNADU-600013


             BY ADVS.
             SRI.JOSHY THANNICKAMATTAM
             SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH

     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 12.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 MACA. No.3269/2015




                                       2
                                                       2025:KER:25103

                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of March, 2025

The 3rd respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No.143/2013 on the file of the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta 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 18.12.2012

According to the petitioner, on 18.12.2012 at about 9.15. a.m., while he

was riding pillion on a motor cycle through Pathanamthitta-Erumeli

public road, a car bearing registration No.KL-01E-8001, driven by the

1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor

cycle and as a result of which he fell down and sustained serious

injuries.

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

and 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to

2025:KER:25103

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.14,45,000/-.

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 testimony of PW1

and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A25.

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.3,62,378/- and directed the insurer to pay the

same.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal, the Respondent No.3 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?

2025:KER:25103

9. Heard Sri.P. Jacob Mathew, the learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri. A. N. Santhosh, 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 Senior Counsel for the appellant/insurer is that

adding 30% income towards future prospects is on the higher side. On

the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.7,500/- is on the

lower side. According to him, the petitioner was conducting tailoring

cum textile business, earning Rs.40,000/- per month, but the Tribunal

fixed his monthly income at Rs.7,500/-. 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 2012 will come to Rs.8,500/-. Since the petitioner

2025:KER:25103

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.8,500/-.

12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries:

"Type II open fracture on both the bones in right leg,

pateliar tendon injury, deep lacerated wound posterior

aspect of right leg etc."

13. The petitioner was treated as inpatient for five days. As per

Exhibit A21 disability certificate issue dby the Medical Board, the

petitioner suffered 15% permanent physical disability. 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 15%, as

fixed by the Tribunal.

14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 43 years.

Therefore, 25% of the monthly income is to be added towards future

2025:KER:25103

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

14, 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.2,67,750/-

15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only

Rs22,500/- being the income for 3 months @ Rs.7500/-. Learned

counsel for the petitioner would argue that considering the nature of

injuries sustained, the compensation awarded on the head 'loss of

earning' is on the lower side. In this case, the petitioner sustained Type

II open fracture on both the bones in right leg, pateliar tendon injury in

addition to deep lacerated wound posterior aspect of right leg.

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.51,000/- (8500x 6

months).

2025:KER:25103

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

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

awarded and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.2,000/- 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 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 of life' and 'extra

nourishment' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to

Rs50,000/-, Rs.35,000/- and Rs.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.4,40,928/-, as modified and recalculated above and

2025:KER:25103

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 22,500/- 51,000/- (8500x6) 2 Pain and suffering 30,000/- 50,000/- 3 Transport to hospital 1,000/- 1,000/- 4 Extra nourishment 2,000/- 5,000/-

5 Compensation for disability 2,45,700/- 2,67,750/- 6 Loss of amenities 30,000/- 35,000/- 7 Medical expenses 29,178/- 29178 8 Bystander expenses 2,000/- 2,000/-

       Total                       3,62,378/-         4,40,928/-
       Enhanced Rs.78,550/-

20. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent

No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs. 4,40,928/- (Rupees four lakh

forty thousand nine hundred and twenty eight 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%).

2025:KER:25103

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 sou.