Kerala High Court
Udayakumar G vs Shaji Varghese on 24 March, 2025
M.A.C.A. No. 3628/2020 :1:
2025:KER:24729
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947
MACA NO. 3628 OF 2020
AWARD DATED 17.06.2019 IN O.P(MV) NO.1557 OF 2015 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
UDAYAKUMAR G., AGED 41 YEARS
INCHATHADIYIL HOUSE, KAVIYOOR P. O., KAVIYOOR VILLAGE,
THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
T.K.KOSHY
SRI.SABU I.KOSHY
SMT.V.V.RISANI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 SHAJI VARGHESE,
S/O. THOMAS VARGHESE, VATTACKATTUCHIRAYIL HOUSE,
KAVUMBHAGOM P. O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN - 689 102.
2 SURESH C. A., S/O. ACHUTHAN PILLAI, CHATHRATHEL PADINJARETHIL,
PERINGARA P. O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN - 689 108.
3 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NELSON
COMPLEX, P. B. NO.60, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 690 502.
R3 BY ADV. SARAH SALVY
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.03.2025, THE COURT ON 24.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. No. 3628/2020 :2:
2025:KER:24729
JOHNSON JOHN, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A No. 3628 of 2020
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2025.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No. 1557 of 2015 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta filed this appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation.
2. According to the petitioner, on 08.08.2015, while he was riding
a motorcycle, autorickshaw driven by the 1 st respondent in a rash and
negligent manner caused to hit the motorcycle and thereby, he fell down
and sustained serious injuries. The 2nd respondent is the owner of the
offending vehicle and the 3rd respondent is the insurer.
3. Before the Tribunal, Exhibits A1 to A14 were marked from the
side of the petitioner and no evidence adduced from the side of the
respondents. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred
only because of the negligence on the part of the 1 st respondent and that
respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation
to the petitioner. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of
Rs.2,82,370/- to the petitioner.
4. Heard Sri. T.K. Koshy, the learned counsel for the appellant
2025:KER:24729
and Smt. Sarah Salvy, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance
company.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant
was aged 37 years and earning Rs.18,000/- per month from his
occupation as a welder at the time of the accident and for the reason
that no evidence is adduced to prove the monthly income, the Tribunal
fixed only a notional income of Rs.9,000/- and the same is on the lower
side.
6. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd.
[(2011) 13 SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional
Manager, United India Insurance Company [(2014) 2 SCC 735 =
2014 KHC 4027] shows that even in the absence of any evidence, the
monthly income of an ordinary worker has to be fixed as Rs.4,500/- in
respect of the accident occurred in the year 2004 and for the subsequent
years, the monthly income could be reckoned by adding Rs.500/- each
per year. If the monthly income of the appellant is calculated by
adopting the above principle, it will come to Rs.10,000/- as the accident
2025:KER:24729
occurred in the year 2015. Therefore, I find that it is only reasonable to
fix the monthly notional income of the appellant as Rs.10,000/- for the
purpose of calculating the compensation.
7. On the basis of Exhibit A11 disability certificate, the Tribunal
accepted 12% functional disability and calculated the compensation for
permanent disability by applying the multiplier of '15' and the same is
not under challenge.
8. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and
Jagdish v. Mohan [(2018) 4 SCC 571] shows that the benefit of
future prospects should not be confined only to those who have a
permanent job and would extend to self-employed individuals and in
case of a self-employed person, an addition of 40% of the established
income should be made where the age of the victim at the time of the
accident was below 40 years.
9. When compensation for permanent disability and loss of
earning capacity is calculated as per the revised criteria, the same
would come to Rs.3,02,400/- [(10000 + 40%) x 12 x 15 x 12/100]. The
Tribunal has already granted Rs.1,94,400/- under this head and
2025:KER:24729
therefore, the appellant is granted an additional compensation of
Rs.1,08,000/- under this head.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal
has granted only Rs.30,000/- towards 'pain and sufferings' and only
Rs.7,000/- towards 'loss of amenities' and the same is on the lower side.
The diagnosis in Exhibit A9 discharge summary shows that the appellant
sustained left FTP thin SDH, left frontotemporal contusions, SAH fracture
right clavicle. Considering the nature of injuries, period of treatment
and disability, an additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- is granted
towards 'pain and sufferings' and Rs.15,000/- is granted towards 'loss of
amenities'. I find that the compensation granted by the Tribunal under
all other heads are reasonable and requires no interference.
11. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to the enhanced
compensation as given below:
Additional
Compensation
amount granted
Particulars awarded by the
by this Court
Tribunal (Rs.)
(Rs.)
Compensation for permanent 1,94,400/- 1,08,000/-
disability and loss of earning
capacity
2025:KER:24729
Pain and sufferings
30,000/- 10,000/-
Loss of amenities
7,000/- 15,000/-
Total enhanced compensation
1,33,000/-
12. Thus, a total amount of Rs.1,33,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
Thirty Three Thousand only) is awarded as enhanced compensation. The
said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the
date of the application till realization. The appellant would also be
entitled to proportionate costs in the case. The claimant shall furnish
the details of the bank account to the insurance company for transfer of
the amount.
The appeal is allowed as above.
sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN,
JUDGE.
Rv
