K. D. Pramod v. K. H. Aliyar, Pinto and The New India Assurance Company Limited

``` 2025:KER:17056 ``` ``` MACA NO.1294 OF 2013 ``` ``` 1 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` MACA NO. 1294 OF 2013 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPMV NO.636 OF 2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL & SPECIAL COURT FOR E.C.ACT ``` ``` CASES, THRISSUR ``` ## **`APPELLANT/PETITIONER:`** ``` K.D. PRAMOD AGED 50 YEARS ``` ``` S/O.LATE DAMODARAN, RESIDING AT KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE, NEAR KARUNA THEATRE THALIKULAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.A.R.NIMOD ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1K.H. ALIYAR S/O.HASSAN, RESIDING AT KAROTHUKUZHY HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683542. ``` - **`2 PINTO AGED 29 YEARS`** ``` S/O.PRAKASAN, RESIDING AT VAZHAKKULATHU HOUSE, THRITHALLUR, VATANAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN- 680619. ``` ``` 3THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED S.S.N.SHOPPING COMPLEX, TEMPLE ROAD, NATTIKA, ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:17056 ``` ``` MACA NO.1294 OF 2013 ``` ## **`P.O.TRIPRAYAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680567.`** ``` BY ADV SMT.M.HEMALATHA ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:17056 ``` ``` MACA NO.1294 OF 2013 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.636/ 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, 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 13.11.2005. According to the petitioner, on 13.11.2005 at about 3.15 p.m., while he was driving an autorickshaw through Kodungalloor-Guruvayoor road, a car bearing reg.no. KL-17/A 6350 driven by the 2[nd] respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the autorickshaw and consequently it dashed against another car and as a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained injuries. 3. The 1[st] 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.2,70,000/-. **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:17056 ``` ``` MACA NO.1294 OF 2013 ``` ``` 4 ``` 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 testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A15. 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.75,705/- rounded off to Rs.75,710/- 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.T.C.Suresh Menon, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Smt.M. Hemalatha, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent. ``` MACA NO.1294 OF 2013 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:17056 ``` ``` 5 ``` 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 an autorickshaw driver, earning Rs.5000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.3000/-. 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 2005 will come to Rs.5000/-. Therefore, the petitioner being an autorickshaw driver by profession, inorder to award just and reasonable compensation, his notional income is fixed at Rs.6000/-, for the purpose of computing the loss of disability. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: contusion on right shoulder, right chest side, abrasion on left frontal area, lacerated wound left forearm, 7[th] rib on right with premothorax, cerebral concussion, fracture on right scapula. **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:17056 ``` ``` MACA NO.1294 OF 2013 ``` ``` 6 ``` 13. Ext. A11 disability certificate shows that the petitioner suffered 4% permanent physical disability. It was issued by the medical board. The Tribunal, however, scaled down the percentage of disability of the petitioner to 2%, without assigning valid and cogent reasons. The law is settled that, if the Tribunal is not satisfied with the disability certificate produced by the petitioner, the remedy is to refer him to a medical board or higher Authority.(See **Manikantan G. v. Janardhanan Nair and Others** , 2021 (5)KHC 305). Having not done so, the Tribunal was not justified in scaling down the percentage of disability from what is shown in the disability certificate. I do find any grounds to disbelieve the said disability and as such the permanent physical disability of the petitioner is fixed as 4%. 14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 44 years. Therefore, 25% 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 14, 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.50,400/-. 15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded Rs.9000/- being the income for 3 months @Rs.3000/-. Since the notional ``` MACA NO.1294 OF 2013 ``` ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:17056 ``` income of the petitioner is re-fixed at Rs.6000/-, towards loss of earning, he is entitled to get a sum of Rs.18,000/-(6000x3 months) 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.14000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.12000/- 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 serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 11 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.30,000/-, and Rs.20,000/- respectively. 18. Towards ‘Extra nourishment’, no amount was granted by the tribunal. Considering the entire facts, I am inclined to grant Rs.2000/towards ‘Extra nourishment’. 19. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 20. Therefore, the petitioners/ appellants are entitled to get a ``` MACA NO.1294 OF 2013 ``` ``` 8 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:17056 ``` total compensation of Rs.1,51,025/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference. |Sl.<br>No<br>.|Head of Claim|Amount awarded by<br>Tribunal (in Rs.)|Amount Awarded<br>in Appeal<br>(in Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earning|9000|18000| |2|Medical expenses|26425|26425| |3|Bystander expenses|2200|2200| |4|Transportation|2000|2000| |5|Extra nourishment|Nil|2000| |6|Pain and sufferings|14000|30000| |7|Loss of disability|10080|50400| |8|Loss of amenities|12000|20000| ||Total|**75,705 (rounded to**<br>**75,710)**|**1,51,025**| ||Enhanced/reduced|**75315**|| 21. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.1,51,025/- (Rupees One Lakhs Fifty One Thousand and Twenty Five 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 140 ``` MACA NO.1294 OF 2013 ``` ``` 9 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:17056 ``` days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. 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** Pvv