Justin T Baby v United India Insurance Co. Ltd

``` 2025:KER:25030 ``` ``` MACA NO.2295 OF 2016 ``` ``` 1 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` MACA NO. 2295 OF 2016 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 26.02.2016 IN OPMV NO.7 OF 2013 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT ``` ``` CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KALPETTA ``` ## **`APPELLANT/PETITIONER:`** ``` JUSTIN T BABY ``` ``` AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. BABY,THEKKINKATTIL HOUSE, ODAPPALLAM KAVALA,MOOLANKAVU P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT. ``` ## **`BY ADV SMT.CELINE JOSEPH`** ## **`RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:`** ``` THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INIDA INSURANCE COM.LTD BRANCH OFFICE, NOORANAL BUILDING,MYSORE ROAD, SULTHAN BATHERY - 673 592. ``` ``` BY ADV SMT.K.C.BEENA ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:25030 ``` ``` MACA NO.2295 OF 2016 ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.7/2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, 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 11.02.2012. According to the petitioner, on 11.02.2012 at about 7.30 p.m., while he was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle, driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of which, the motorcycle skidded and he fell down and sustained serious injuries. 3. The 1[st] respondent is the driver, the 2[nd] respondent is the owner and 3[rd] 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.8,17,000/- limited to Rs.5,00,000/-. 4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the ``` 2025:KER:25030 ``` ``` MACA NO.2295 OF 2016 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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 A8 and C1. 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.4,99,100/- 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 Smt. Celine Joseph, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Smt. K.C. Beena, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd ] 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 ``` MACA NO.2295 OF 2016 ``` ``` 4 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25030 ``` working as salesman, earning Rs.5000 per month, and the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.5000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. 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 2012 will come to Rs.8500/-.Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.8500/-. 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 2012 will come to Rs.8500/-, 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.8500/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: Fracture of left maxilla mandible, diffuse cerebral edemia, fracture lateral wall and floor of left orbit with minimal herniation of intra orbital fat, comminuted and displaced fracture involving the anterior lateral and medial wall of ``` MACA NO.2295 OF 2016 ``` ``` 5 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25030 ``` bilateral maxillary sinuses and nasal bone bilaterally, linear fracture involving palate, displaced fracture of body of mandible on left and haemosinu involving bilateral maxillary and ethmoid sinuses. The final diagnosis was that he had fracture left maxilla and mandible. 13. As per Exhibit C1 disability certificate the petitioner suffered 30% 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 30%, as fixed by the Tribunal. 14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 18 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 Transport Corporation,** [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. In the above circumstances, the loss of disability will come to Rs.771120/-. 15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.15000/- being the income for 3 months @Rs.5000/-. Considering the ``` MACA NO.2295 OF 2016 ``` ``` 6 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25030 ``` 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 8 months. Therefore, towards 'loss of income' the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.68000/- (8500 x 8 months). 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10000/-. Towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.1050/- 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 7 days, in the meantime, two surgeries were done. 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 'extra nourishment' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.10000/- respectively. 18. Towards ‘loss of amenities’, the tribunal has not awarded any amount. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Rs.60000/- is awarded on the aforesaid head. 19. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, ``` 2025:KER:25030 ``` ``` MACA NO.2295 OF 2016 ``` ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 20. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.11,58,170/- 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|15000|68000| |2|Medical expense|146000|146000| |3|Bystander expense|1050|1050| |4|Transport to hospital|1500|1500| |5|Extra nourishment|1050|10000| |6|Damage to clothing|500|500| |7|Pain and suffering|10000|100000| |8|Loss of disability|324000|771120| |9|Loss of amenities|Nil|60000| ||||| ||**Total**|**499100**|**1158170**| ||Enhanced**659070**||| 21. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.11,58,170 (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Seventy only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest rate as ordered by the Tribunal, ``` MACA NO.2295 OF 2016 ``` ``` 8 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25030 ``` from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. (Enhanced compensation will carry interest @8%) 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** Pvv