BY AD vs SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW

BY ADVS. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW K.S.SANTHI THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No.3869 of 2016 -3- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 13th day of March, 2025 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.360/2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam 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 20.08.2011. According to the petitioner, on 20.08.2011 at about 7.30 p.m., while he was riding a motorcycle, a maruthi car bearing Reg.No.KL-23/C-7736 driven by the 2nd respondent abruptly stopped the car and took reverse for the purpose of entering into a nearby petrol pump. As a result of which the car hit on the motorcycle, he fell down and sustained injuries

3. The 1st respondent is the owner, the 2nd respondent is the driver and 3rd 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.2,00,000/-.

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 M.A.C.A.No.3869 of 2016 -4- testimonies of PW1, PW2 and RW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A10 and X1. No documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents.

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.55,480/- rounded to Rs.56,000/- 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.Thyparambil Thomas Thomas, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.P.Jacob Mathew, 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 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 mechanic, earning Rs.18,000/- 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. M.A.C.A.No.3869 of 2016

11. It is true that the petitioner could not prove his -5- income, as claimed in the OP. However from the evidence of the petitioner as PW1 it is proved that the petitioner was a mechanic by profession. 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 2011 will come to Rs.8000/-. Therefore, the petitioner being a mechanic by profession, his notional income is fixed at Rs.9000/-, for the purpose of computing the loss of disability.

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

1. Comminuted fracture on the right clavicle

2. Lacerated wound at the lateral aspect of right leg.

3. Tenderness at the mid clavicular region (right side)

4. Lacerated ;wound 2 X 05 over the scalp

5. Other injuries all over the body.

13. The petitioner is treated as an inpatient for eight days. He has not produced any disability certificate and even then the Tribunal has fixed his functional disability at 2% and the same is not under challenge.

14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 30 years. Therefore, 40% of the monthly income is to be added towards future prospects, as held in the decision in National Insurance Co. M.A.C.A.No.3869 of 2016 -6- Ltd v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and the multiplier to be applied is 17, 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.51,408/-.

15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.6,000/- being the income for one months @Rs.6,000/-. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the period during which he was treated as inpatient and the fact that he was a mechanic by profession, the petitioner might have lost income at least for a period of 3 months. Therefore, towards 'loss of income' the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.27,000/- (9,000 x 3 months).

16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- and Towards 'loss of amenities of life' nothing was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on the head ‘pain and sufferings’ is on the lower side.

17. The petitioner sustained serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 8 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 head ‘pain and sufferings’ is on the lower side and hence it is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. Towards ‘loss of amenities of life’, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of M.A.C.A.No.3869 of 2016 Rs.20,000/-. -7-

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. The tribunal found that there was 25% contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner as it is revealed that the petitioner hit his motorcycle on the rear side of the car driven by the 2nd respondent. As per Ext.A4 Final Report, the accident was reported as a motor occurrence and no negligence was found against the 2 nd respondent. In the above circumstances, I hold that the tribunal was justified in finding 25% contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner.

20. Therefore, the petitioner/appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of 75% of Rs.1,00,056/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: Sl. No . Head of Claim 1 Loss of earnings 2 Transportation hospital 3 Extra nourishment 4 damage to clothing and articles 5 Medicine and Bystanders expenses Amount awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Amount Awarded in Appeal (in Rs.) 6,000/- 1,000/- 800/- 1000/- 27,000/- 1,000/- 800/- 1000/- 2,200/- 2,200/- M.A.C.A.No.3869 of 2016 6 Compensation for pain 20,000/- 30,000/- -8- and suffering 7 Compensation for continuing or permanent disability, if any. 24,480/- 51,408/- 8 Loss of Amenities --- Total Reduced Rs.43,056/- 55,480/- rounded to 56,000 reduced to 42,000/- 20,000/- 1,33,408/- reduced to 1,00,056/-

21. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,056/- (Rupees one lakh fifty six only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, excluding interest for a period of 163 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. (Enhanced compensation will carry interest @8%)

22. 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 ADS