Krishnan Kutty v. Divisional Manager, M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kollam

_**MACA. No.2762/2017**_ _**1**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15074 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 17[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 28TH MAGHA, 1946 ``` ``` MACA NO. 2762 OF 2017 ``` ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 04.06.2015 IN OPMV NO.1303 OF 2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOLLAM ``` ## **`APPELLANT/PETITIONER:`** ``` KRISHNAN KUTTY AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, KARTHIKA, PANAPPETTY, SASTHAMCOTTA. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.PRATHEESH.P ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:`** ``` THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER M/S.NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLLAM, PIN - 691 506. REPRESENTING KOTTARAKKARA BRANCH. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW, STANDING COUNSEL ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` _**MACA. No.2762/2017**_ _**2**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15074 ``` ## J U D G M E N T Dated this the 17[th] day of February, 2025 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1303/2013 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 16.12.2011. According to the petitioner, on 16.12.2011 at about 3.15 p.m., while he was riding a motor cycle, he was hit down by a car bearing registration No.KL-24B-1616 owned and driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of which he fell down and sustained serious injuries. 3. The 2[nd] respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence _**MACA. No.2762/2017**_ _**3**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15074 ``` of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.3,64,000/- and limited to Rs.3,00,000/-. 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 documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A9. 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.25000/- 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. Pratheesh P., the learned Counsel appearing for the _**MACA. No.2762/2017**_ _**4**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`2025:KER:15074`** petitioner/appellant, and Sri. P. Jacob Mathew, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2[nd] 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 salesman in a Kerosene store, earning Rs.10,000/- per month, but 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 2011 will come to Rs.8,000/-. Since the petitioner could not prove his job or income as claimed in the OP, in the light of a dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Ramachandrappa (supra)** , his notional income is liable to be fixed as _**MACA. No.2762/2017**_ _**5**_ ``` 2025:KER:15074 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** that of a coolie, at Rs.8,000/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: “ _Abrasion skin over scalp parietal and temporal region. Abrasion skin below knee Abrasion skin left forehead abrasion skin below foot/injury right pinna Fracture C2 vertebrae without any neurological defect. Fracture base of 1[st] meta carpal left”_ 13. The petitioner was treated as inpatient for a period of 5 days. In this case the petitioner has not produced any disability certificate and as such the petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation on the head 'loss of disability'. 14. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/- being the income for a month @Rs.5,000/-. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on the head 'loss of earning' is on the lower side. Since in the accident, the petitioner sustained fracture of C2 vertebrae and base of 1[st] meta carpal, the petitioner might have lost income at least for a period of six months. _**MACA. No.2762/2017**_ _**6**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`2025:KER:15074`** Therefore, towards 'loss of income' the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.48,000/- (8000x6months). 15. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/-. and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.500/- was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' no compensation was awarded. 16. The petitioner sustained serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 5 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 'extra nourishment' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.40,000/-, and Rs.3,000/respectively. For the very same reasons, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- on the head 'loss of amenities of life'. 17. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just _**MACA. No.2762/2017**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [6 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> 7<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> ``` 2025:KER:15074 ``` and reasonable. 18. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.1,20,500/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: |**Sl.**<br>**No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount awarded**<br>**by Tribunal(in Rs.)**|**Amount Awarded**<br>**in Appeal(in Rs.)**| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earning|5,000/-|48,000/-| |2|Transport to hospital|2,000/-|2,000/-| |3|Bystander expenses|1,000/-|1,000/-| |4|Extra nourishment|500/-|3,000/-| |5|Damage to clothing& articles|500/-|500/-| |6|Medical expenses|1,000/-|1,000/-| |7|Pain and suffering|15,000/-|40,000/-| |8|Loss of amenities|Nil|25,000/-| ||**Total**|**25,000/-**|**1,20,500/-**| ||Enhanced Rs.95,500/-||| 19. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.1,20,500/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand five hundred only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest at the rate ordered by the Tribunal, from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, excluding interest for a period _**MACA. No.2762/2017**_ _**8**_ **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:15074 ``` of 713 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%). 20. 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 sou.