Biju Cheriyan v. The Managing Director KSRTC, Fort, Thiruvananthapuram

``` 2025:KER:16603 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` MACA NO. 1420 OF 2015 ``` ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 12.06.2013 IN OPMV NO.553 OF 2007 OF ``` ``` MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PERUMBAVOOR ``` ## **`APPELLANT:`** ``` BIJU CHERIYAN AGED 32 YEARS S/O.CHERIYAN, PARAPURAM HOUSE, AVANAKKKUNCHAL, RAJAKUMARI P O, MANGATHOTTIYIL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK ``` ## **`BY ADV SMT.ANUPAMA JOHNY`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC,FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** ``` 2MATHEW JOSEPH (DELETED) S/O.JOSEPH, MAMKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, KOOTHATTUKULAM P O. (RESPONDENT NO. 2 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 23/11/2022 IN MACA 1420/2015) ``` ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A. ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ``` ``` ON 27.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 1420 OF 2015 2 ``` ``` 2025:KER:16603 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **J U D G M E N T** Dated this the 27[th] day of February, 2025 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.553/2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, 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 13.01. 2007. According to the petitioner, on 13.01.2007 at about 10 p.m., while he was riding a motorcycle, a K.S.R.T.C bus bearing Reg.No. KL-15-4437 driven by the 2[nd] respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit him down. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries. 3. The 1[st] respondent is the owner and the 2[nd] respondent is the driver 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.1,4,80,000/-(limited to 10,00,000) 4. The 1[st] respondent filed a written statement, admitting the ``` MACA NO. 1420 OF 2015 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:16603 ``` accident, 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 A8 and X1. No 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. 4,25,552/-and directed the 1[st] respondent 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 Smt. Anupama Johny, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri. Alex Antony Sebastian the learned Standing Counsel for the 1[st] respondent. 10. The Point: In this case the accident is admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the ``` MACA NO. 1420 OF 2015 4 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** `2025:KER:16603` income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the petitioner was working as Cleaner of the lorry, 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 2007 will come to Rs.6000/-.Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.6000/-. 12. It was argued by the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent that, since the petitioner has claimed monthly income of Rs.5,000/- alone, his notional income cannot be fixed over and above what is claimed in the Original petition. 13. However, the law is well settled that, the tribunal and this Court has not only the authority, but also a duty to award just and reasonable compensation to the victims of Motor Vehicles accidents and for the said purpose even the notional income can be fixed over and above what is claimed by the Original petition ( **Sasidharan Namboothiri and Others v. Rajeev Kesavan and Others** [2025 ICO130]). Since the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2007 will come to ``` MACA NO. 1420 OF 2015 5 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:16603 ``` Rs.6000/-, 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.6000/-. 14. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: “(1) Severe head injury with brain oedema (2) Fracture occipital and temporal bones (3) Fracture shaft of right femur (4) Fracture right tibial condyle (5) Fracture radial styloid right arm (6) Fracture right zygoma with fracture orbital complex (7) Fracture nasal bones and walls of right maxillary antrum (8) Fracture head of 2nd meta tarsal right foot (9) Bilateral frontal SDH with right parietal EDH (10) Lacerated wounds 10 cm forehead nose lips and chin (11) Contusion abdomen and abrasion right knee and face (12) Abraded contusion left knee (13) Lacerated wound 3 x 5 cm left middle finger” 15. As per Exhibit X1 disability certificate the petitioner suffered 23% 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 23%, as fixed by the Tribunal. 16. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 24 years. Therefore, 40% of the monthly income is to be added towards future ``` MACA NO. 1420 OF 2015 6 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** `2025:KER:16603` 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 Transport Corporation,** [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. In the above circumstances, the loss of disability will come to Rs.4,17,312/-. 17. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.28,000/- being the income for 8 months @Rs.3500/-. Since the notional income of the petitioner is re-fixed at Rs. 6000/-, towards loss of earning he is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 48,000/- (6000 x 8 months). 18. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- and towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs. 30,000/- was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side. 19. The petitioner sustained very serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 53 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’ and 'loss of amenities of life' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- and 75,000/- respectively. 20. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, ``` MACA NO. 1420 OF 2015 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:16603 ``` as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 21. Therefore, the petitioner/appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of **Rs.7,83,984/-** as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: |**Sl.**<br>**No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount awarded by**<br>**Tribunal (in Rs.)**|**Amount Awarded in**<br>**Appeal (in Rs.)**| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earning|Rs.28,000/-|Rs.48,000/-| |2|Transport to hospital|Rs.1000/-|Rs.1000/-| |3|Extra nourishment|Rs.6,000/-|Rs.6,000/-| |4|Damage to clothes etc.|Rs.500|Rs.500| |5|Bystander expenses|Rs.7,950/-|Rs.7,950/-| |6|Medical expenses|Rs.1,28,222/-|Rs.1,28,222/-| |7|Pain and suffering|Rs.50,000/-|Rs.1,00,000/-| |8|Loss of amenities etc.|Rs.30,000/-|Rs.75,000/-| |9|Disability|Rs.1,73,880/-|Rs.4,17,312/-| ||**Total**|**Rs.4,25,552/-**|**Rs.7,83,984/-**| ||**Enhanced**|**Rs.3,58,432/-**|| 22. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and 1[st] respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of **Rs.7,83,984/-** (Rupees Seven lakhs eighty three thousand nine hundred eighty four only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, excluding interest for a period of 669 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs, within a ``` MACA NO. 1420 OF 2015 8 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:16603 ``` period of two months from today. 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** vnk/-