BY AD vs SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW- SC

BY ADVS. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW- SC SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA. No.1162/2014 2 J U D G M E N T Dated this the 13th day of February, 2025 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.84 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode 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 17.12.2009. According to the petitioner, on 17.12.2009 at about 9 a.m., while she was riding pillion on a scooter ridden by the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent twisted the scooter carelessly and as a result of which she fell down and she sustained serious injuries.

3. The 1st respondent is the owner cum rider, and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1 st MACA. No.1162/2014 3 respondent. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.7,27,000/-.

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 Exts.A1 to A11 and C1.

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.5,51,871/- 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.S Chandrasekharan, the learned Counsel appearing MACA. No.1162/2014 4 for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri. P. Jacob Mathew, 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 Tailor, earning Rs. 6,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed her monthly income at Rs.3,000/-.

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.7,000/-. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.7000/-. 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 2009 will come to Rs.7000/-, in order to award just and reasonable compensation, in the light of a dictum laid down in the MACA. No.1162/2014 5 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.7000/-.

12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: "fracture left side of temporo parital extradural hematoma, temporal contusion with subdural hematoma, fracture left zygomatic arch, 6 cm long scalp laceration at the parietal eminence, diffuse swelling persists."

13. Ext. C1 disability certificate shows that the petitioner suffered 45% permanent physical disability. It was issued by the medical board. 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 45%, as fixed by the Tribunal.

14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 50 years. Therefore, 10% 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 MACA. No.1162/2014 6 13, 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.5,40,540/-.

15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.18,000/- being the income for 6 months @Rs.3000/-. Since the notional income of the petitioner is re-fixed at Rs. 7,000/-, towards loss of earning he is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 42,000/-(7000x6months).

16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.15,000/- was awarded and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.2,500/- 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 52 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 MACA. No.1162/2014 7 amenities of life' and 'extra nourishment' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.50,000/-, Rs.30,000/- 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.9,48,311/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: Amount awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Amount Awarded in Appeal (in Rs.) Sl. No. Head of Claim 1 Loss of earning 2 Transportation 3 Damage to Clothing 4 Extra nourishment 5 Bystander expenses 6 Treatment expenses 7 Pain and suffering 8 Loss of disability 18,000/- 1,000/- 5,00/- 2,500/- 10,400/- 2,68,871/- 25,000/- 2,10,600/- 9 Loss of amenities of life 15,000/- Total 5,51,871/- Enhanced Rs.3,96,440/- 42,000/- (7000x6) 1,000/- 500/- 5,000/- 10,400/- 2,68,871/- 50,000/- 5,40,540/- 30,000/- 9,48,311/- MACA. No.1162/2014 8

20. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No. 2 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.9,48,311/- (Rupees nine lakh forty eight thousand three hundred and eleven 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/- sou. C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE