Maya Santhan v. Rajula (Deleted) and Vinu Zachariah (Deleted) and The Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

``` 2025:KER:21339 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025/19TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` MACA NO. 312 OF 2016 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 20.05.2015 IN OPMV NO.1691 OF 2006 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-II & IST ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA. ``` ## **`APPELLANT:`** ``` MAYA SANTHAN, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O SANJAY PANICKER, PRASANTHI HOSUE, MATTOM SOUTH, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THATTARAMBALAM, MAVELIKARA. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.R.PADMAKUMAR SRI.P.ARAVIND ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`*1 RAJULA,(DELETED) W/O VINU ZACHARIAH, KURADAMANNIL HOUSE, PATHITHOPPIL, PATHANAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT KOIPPALLIL HOUSE, ORIPRAM MURI, CHENNITHALA VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA, PIN:690 105.`** - **`*2 VINU ZACHARIAH,(DELETED) S/O K.J. ZACHARIAH, KOIPPALLIL HOUSE, ORIPRAM, CHENNITHALA, MAVELIKARA, PIN:690 105 *RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 21/02/2025 IN IA 1/25 IN MACA NO.312/2016.`** M.A.C.A.No.312 of 2016 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:21339 ``` ``` -2- ``` ``` 3THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA, ANNAPOORNA ROAD, COLLEGE ROAD, MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA, PIN:688 001. ``` ``` BY ADVS. N.S.NAJEEB P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` M.A.C.A.No.312 of 2016 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:21339` ``` -3- ``` ## **J U D G M E N T** ## Dated this the 10[th] day of March, 2025 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1691/2006 on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal II, Mavelikkara 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 28.09.2006. According to the petitioner, on 28.09.2006 at about 3.30 p.m., while she was riding a motorcycle, another motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-4R/3591 ridden by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against her motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained injuries. 3. The 1[st] respondent is the rider, 2[nd] respondent is the owner and the 3[rd] respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.2,50,000/- 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.312 of 2016 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:21339` ``` -4- ``` testimonies of PW1 and PW2 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A11 and Ext.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.1,87,505/- 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.R.Padmakumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.P.V.Jyothiprasad, 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 working in a private company, earning Rs.13,000/per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.3,000/-. 11. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in _**Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal**_ M.A.C.A.No.312 of 2016 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:21339` ``` -5- ``` _**Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.**_ [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2006 will come to Rs.5,500/-. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.5,500/-. 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 2006 will come to Rs.5,500/-, 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.5,500/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: i) _fracture left tibial condylar_ _ii) Pain left knee and swelling_ 13. As per Exhibit C1 disability certificate the petitioner suffered 7% permanent physical disability. It was issued by the an orthopaedic surgeon, who was examined as PW2. In the disability certificate, it is noted that there was shortening of 1 cm on his left leg. 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 7%, as fixed by the Tribunal. 14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 43 M.A.C.A.No.312 of 2016 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:21339` ``` -6- ``` 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.80,850/-. 15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has not awarded any compensation. Considering the 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 3 months. Therefore, towards 'loss of income' the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.16,500/- (5,500 x 3 months). 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.10,000/was awarded, towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.1,000/- was awarded and towards ‘bystander expenses’ Rs.1,950/- 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 14 days in two stages. 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 M.A.C.A.No.312 of 2016 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:21339` ``` -7- ``` sufferings’, 'loss of amenities of life', 'extra nourishment' and ‘bystander expenses’ are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.40,000/-, 30,000/-, 3,000/- and 3,000/- respectively. 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. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.2,77,585/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: |**Sl.**<br>**No**<br>**.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount awarded**<br>**by Tribunal (in**<br>**Rs.)**|**Amount**<br>**Awarded in**<br>**Appeal (in Rs.)**| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earning|----|16,500/-| |2|Transport to hospital|4,000/-|4,000/-| |3|Damage to clothing|500/-|500/-| |4|Other medical expenses<br>and bystander’s<br>expenses|99,735<br>1950|99,735/-<br>3,000/-| |5|Extra nourishment|1,000/-|3,000/-| |6|Compensation for pain<br>and suferings|30,000/-|40,000/-| |7|Compensation for<br>continuing or<br>permanent disability|40,320/-|80,850/-| |8|Compensation of loss of<br>amenities in life|10,000/-|30,000/-| ||**Total**|1,87,505/-|**2,77,585/-**| ||Enhanced_Reduced Rs.90,080/_-||| 20. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and M.A.C.A.No.312 of 2016 ``` 2025:KER:21339 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.2,77,585/(Rupees two lakhs seventy seven thousand five hundred and eighty five 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 148 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%) 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