NADARAJAN v. SUDHEER, SHAJI ANTONY & THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

``` 2025:KER:14760 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 16TH MAGHA, 1946 ``` ``` MACA NO. 2837 OF 2014 ``` ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 24.05.2014 IN OPMV NO.1858 OF 2011 OF ``` ``` MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM ``` ## **`APPELLANT:`** ``` NADARAJAN AGED 49 YEARS S/O.KOCHUKUNJU, PUTHENPURA KIZHAKKATHIL VEEDU, MULLIKKALA, THEVALAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1SUDHEER S/O.NOORUDEEN KUTTY, KANNOLIKATHU VADAKKATHIL @ KANJIRAMVILA, KIZHAKKATHIL, KADAPPA MURI, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK - 685 049. ``` - **`2 SHAJI ANTONY S/O.THOMAS ANTONY, THARAKANPARAMBIL, DHEERALCHIRA, CHANGANASSERI, PATHANAMTHITTA - 685 048.`** ``` 3THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., PARAMESWARAN PILLAI BHAVAN, KOLLAM - 691 001. ``` ## **`BY ADV SRI.K.B.RAMANAND`** ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`SMT. DHANYA BABU M B -SC`** ``` MACA NO. 2837 OF 2014 2 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:14760 ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO. 2837 OF 2014 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:14760 ``` ## **J U D G M E N T** Dated this the 5[th] day of February, 2025 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1858/ 2011 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 15.05.2008. According to the petitioner, on 15.05.2008 at about 9 a.m, while he was riding a bicycle, he was hit down by a lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-C 7032. As a result of the accident, the petitioner 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.4,00,000/-. ``` MACA NO. 2837 OF 2014 4 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:14760 ``` 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 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.19,000/- 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.H Abdul Azeez, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri. Dhanya Babu M.B, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent. 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 ``` MACA NO. 2837 OF 2014 5 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** `2025:KER:14760` fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the petitioner was working as lottery agent, earning Rs.6000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.3500/-. 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 2008 will come to Rs.6500/-. 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 that of a coolie, at Rs.6500/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: “Lacerated injury left parietal region Lacerated injury chin” 13. 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.3500 being the income for 1 month @Rs.3500/- . Considering the nature ``` MACA NO. 2837 OF 2014 6 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** `2025:KER:14760` 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. 19500/- (6500x 3 months). 15. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities no amount was awarded, towards ‘Bystander expenses’ Rs.1500/- was awarded and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs. 750/- was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side. 16. The petitioner sustained serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 15 days. Because of the injuries sustained, and the length of treatment undergone by the petitioner, I hold that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the heads ‘pain and sufferings’, 'loss of amenities of life', ‘Bystander expenses’ and 'extra nourishment' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.15,000, 7500, 3000 and 2000/respectively. 17. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. ``` MACA NO. 2837 OF 2014 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:14760 ``` 18. Therefore, the petitioners/ appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of **Rs.50,250/-** , 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<br>(in Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earning from 15-5-<br>2008 to 11-11-2011|3,500/-|19,500/-| |2|Transportation to hospital<br>(two times)|2000/-|2000/-| |3|Extra nourishment till date|750/-|2000/-| |4|Damage to clothing and<br>motor cycle|250/-|250/-| |5|Others -( Medicine, hospital<br>expenses,|1000|1000/-| ||Expenses of bystanders and<br>expenses if Ayurvedic<br>treatment|1500|3000/-| |6|Compensation for Pain and<br>sufferings|10,000|15000/-| |7|Loss of amenities|----|7500/-| ||Total|Rs.19,000/-|**Rs.50,250/-**| ||Enhanced|Rs.31250/-|| 19. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and 3[rd] respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of **Rs.50,250/-** /- (Rupees Fifty thousand two fifty Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along ``` MACA NO. 2837 OF 2014 8 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** `2025:KER:14760` with interest at the rate ordered by the Tribunal, 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%) 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** vnk/-