SIJOHN v. XAVIER.N.P

BY ADV SRI.K.B.RAMANAND THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA NO. 579 OF 2014 2 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.292/2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, 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 12.08.2008. According to the petitioner, on

12.08.2008 at about 10.30 a.m., while he was walking through Aranattukara – Kanjani road, a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-8-AG-2238 ridden 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 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.1,50,000/-.

#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 documentary evidence MACA NO. 579 OF 2014 3 Exts.A1 to A6.

#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.74,640/- 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.V.Binoy Ram, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.K.B.Ramanand, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.

#10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid 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 a Aluminium Fabricator, earning Rs.5,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.3,500/-.

#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 2008 MACA NO. 579 OF 2014 4 will come to Rs.6,500/-. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.6500/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. Since the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2008 will come to Rs.6500/-, in order to award just and reasonable compensation, in the light of a dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa (supra), the notional income of the petitioner is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.6500/-.

#12. In the accident the petitioner sustained abrasion on forehead, chin and forearm, lacerated wound on nose 2x0.5x0.5 cm and fracture of distal right radius.

#13. Ext.A6 disability certificate shows that the petitioner suffered 5% permanent physical disability. It was issued by an orthopaedic surgeon, Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Chalakkudy. The Tribunal, however, scaled down the percentage of disability of the petitioner to 3%, with the consent of both the counsel. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the percentage of disability fixed by the tribunal with the consent of both the parties.

#14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 20 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 18, as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi MACA NO. 579 OF 2014 5 Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. In the above circumstances, the loss of disability will come to Rs.58,968/-.

#15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.7,000/- being the income for 2 months @Rs.3,500/-. 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 4 months. Therefore, towards 'loss of income' the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.26,000/- (6,500 x 4 months).

#16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.10,000/- was awarded, towards ‘transportation expenses’ Rs.500 and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.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 he was treated as inpatient for 7 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', ‘transportation expenses’ and 'extra nourishment' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.40,000/-, Rs.25,000/-, Rs.2,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively.

#18. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as MACA NO. 579 OF 2014 6 the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable.

#19. Therefore, the petitioner/appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.1,81,448/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference. Amount awarded by Amount Awarded Sl. No. 1 2 Head of Claim Loss of earning Transportation expenses Tribunal (in Rs.) 7,000 500 in Appeal (in Rs.) 26,000 2,000 24,930 3,000 500 1,050 40,000 58,968 25,000 1,81,448 3 Medical & miscellaneous 24,930 4 Extra nourishment 5 Damage to clothing 6 Bystander expenses 7 8 9 Pain and sufferings Permanent disability Loss of amenities Total 500 500 1,050 10,000 20,160 10,000 74,640 Enhanced to Rs. 1,06,808

#20. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 2nd respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.1,81,448/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty One MACA NO. 579 OF 2014 7 Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Eight 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.

#21. 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/- SMA C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE