M.P. Ramadasan v. P.V. Sivaram, C.A. Gopi and The New India Assurance Company Limited

``` 2025:KER:26197 ``` **==> picture [57 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. 539 OF 2014 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 09.05.2013 IN OPMV ``` ``` NO.2232 OF 2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL & SPECIAL COURT FOR E.C. ACT CASES, THRISSUR. ``` ## **`APPELLANT:`** ``` M.P. RAMADASAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.P.T.RAMAN, RESIDING AT MADAPPARAMBATH HOUSE, KOLARAD STREET, KOZHIKODE - 673 308. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.A.R.NIMOD ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 P.V. SIVARAMAN, S/O APPU, RESIDING AT PARAMEL HOUSE, PANNISSERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR - 680 503.`** - **`2 C.A.GOPI, S/O ACHAPPA, RESIDING AT CHEMANNUR HOUSE, P.O.CHEMMANUR, KANIPAYYUR, THRISSUR - 680 517.`** - **`3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ORISON COMPLEX, WADAKKANCHERY ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR - 680 503.`** ``` BY ADV SRI.JOY JOSEPH MANAYATHU SRI.P.JAYASANKAR ``` M.A.C.A.No.539 of 2014 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26197 ``` ``` -2- ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` M.A.C.A.No.539 of 2014 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26197 ``` ``` -3- ``` ## **J U D G M E N T** Dated this the 14[th] day of March, 2025 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.2232/2006 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 22.06.2006. According to the petitioner, on 22.06.2006 at about 3.45 p.m., while he was driving a bus along the Kunnamkulam – Changaramkulam public road, another bus bearing Registration No.KL-8/W-7928 driven by the 2[nd] respondent in a rash and negligent manner with high speed while trying to overtake another bus hit on the bus driven by the petitioner. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries. 3. The 1[st] respondent is the owner, the 2[nd] respondent is the driver 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.4,57,500/- limited to M.A.C.A.No.539 of 2014 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26197 ``` ``` -4- ``` Rs.4,50,000/-. 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 documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A11 and Ext.X1 medical report was marked. From the side of respondents Ext.B1 policy is marked. 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.4,13,440 rounded to Rs.4,13,450/- 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 Sri.P.Jayasankar, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd ] respondent. 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid M.A.C.A.No.539 of 2014 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26197 ``` ``` -5- ``` 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 driver, earning Rs.7,500/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.4,000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. Admittedly, the petitioner was a bus driver by profession. Even at the time of the accident he was driving a bus. He has also produced Ext.A11 driving licence to substantiate the above contention. 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 2006 will come to Rs.5,500/-. Therefore, considering the fact that the petitioner was a bus driver at the time of the accident. His notional income is to be fixed at Rs.7,000/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: _Fracture of medial femural condyle (L), fracture shaft femur (Rt) mid – lower 1/3rd communition, fracture patella (R)_ M.A.C.A.No.539 of 2014 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:26197` ``` -6- ``` _inferior pole and skin loss and lacerated wound 10 x 8 cm over lateral aspect (Rt) thigh, comminuted fracture posterior lip (Rt) accetabulam. Fracture 7[th] (t) rib, lacerated wound 12 x 2 x 2 below Rt. Nipple, lacerated wound both palms extensive abraded contusion (rt) front of chest._ 13. As per Exhibit.X1 disability certificate the petitioner suffered 34% 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 34%, as fixed by the Tribunal. 14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 42 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.4,99,800/-. 15. Since the notional income of the petitioner is refixed at Rs.7,000, towards loss of earning he is entitled to get a sum M.A.C.A.No.539 of 2014 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26197 ``` ``` -7- ``` of Rs.84,000/- (7,000 x 12 months) 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- and towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.25,000/- 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 51 days in 4 spells. 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 70,000/respectively. 18. Towards the heads of ‘extra nourishment’ and ‘ damage to clothings’, no compensation was awarded by the tribunal. Considering the nature of the injuries and treatment of days undergone by the petitioner, I am inclined to grant an amount of Rs.10,000/- and 500/- respectively on those heads. 19. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears M.A.C.A.No.539 of 2014 ``` 2025:KER:26197 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` -8- ``` to be just and reasonable. 20. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.8,51,260/-, 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|48,000/-|84,000/-| |2|Transportation and<br>Miscellaneous<br>expenses|5,000/-|5,000/-| |3|Extra nourishment|---|10,000/-| |4|Clothings|----|500/-| |5|Medical expenses|71,760/-|71,760/-| |6|Bystander expenses|10,200/-|10,200/-| |7|Pain and suferings|25,000/-|1,00,000/-| |8|Disability|2,28,480/-|4,99,800/-| |9|Loss of amenities and<br>enjoyment of life|25,000/-|70,000/-| ||**Total**|4,13,440<br>4,13,450/-|**8,51,260/-**| ||Enhanced Rs.4,37,810/-||| 21. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.8,51,260/(Rupees eight lakhs fifty one thousand two hundred and sixty only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% M.A.C.A.No.539 of 2014 ``` 2025:KER:26197 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` -9- ``` per annum from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, excluding interest for a period of 138 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs, within a 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** ADS