Ratheesh Kumar Pazhayavilayil Veedu v. Sukumaran Karthikayil Veedu and others

``` 2025:KER:22757 ``` ``` MACA NO.620 OF 2016 ``` ``` 1 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR`** ``` MONDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 620 OF 2016`** ``` AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 04.06.2015 IN OPMV NO.363 OF 2004 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - III/ ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-II, MAVELIKKARA ``` ## **`APPELLANT/PETITIONER:`** ## **`RATHEESH KUMAR PAZHAYAVILAYIL VEEDU, PALAMEL PANCHAYATH, PALAMEL.`** ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 SUKUMARAN KARTHIKAYIL VEEDU, VADAKKUMBHAGOM MURI, KAZHAKOOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.`** - **`2 SUSEELABHAI S KARTHIKA, VADAKKUM BHAGAM, KAZHAKKOOOTTAM, TRIVANDRUM.`** - **`3 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KAYAMKULAM.`** ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:22757 ``` ``` MACA NO.620 OF 2016 ``` ``` BY ADV SEBASTIAN VARGHESE(K/141/2000) ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:22757 ``` ``` MACA NO.620 OF 2016 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No363/2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 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 08.06.2003. According to the petitioner, on 08.06.2003 at about 10.30 a.m., while he was riding a scooter bearing reg.no.KL.04.C.9584, a car bearing reg.no.KL.01.AA.6546 driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner and over speed hit against the motorcycle of the petitioner and he 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.6,74,000/-, limited to is Rs.6,50,000/-. ``` 2025:KER:22757 ``` ``` MACA NO.620 OF 2016 ``` ``` 4 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 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 A17 and X1. 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.6,51,172/- 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.George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.Sebastian Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd ] respondent. 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid ``` 2025:KER:22757 ``` ``` MACA NO.620 OF 2016 ``` ``` 5 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 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 sales representative, earning Rs.7000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.6000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. 11. Relying upon Ext.A15, A16, A17 & A10 he would argue that the petitioner had worked in various firms and since 1992 there was steady increase in his salary and in the year 2003 he was getting a salary of Rs.7500/-. From Ext.A14 transfer certificate it is revealed that he has completed BA Degree course in the year 1992. From Ext.A15 it can be seen that in the year 1992 he worked in Maxwell and received a salary of Rs.800/-. From Ext.A16, it is revealed that during the year 1998, he worked in Solo International and received a salary of Rs.2840/-. From Ext.A17, it is revealed that during the year 2001, he worked in Surabhi Wears Pvt.Ltd. and was getting a monthly salary of Rs.4000/-. From Ext.A10, it is revealed that during the year 2003, he has worked in Airy Mills Pvt.Ltd., and was getting a monthly income of Rs.7500/-. The petitioner was examined as PW1 to prove ``` MACA NO.620 OF 2016 ``` ``` 6 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:22757 ``` Exts.A15, A16, A17 &A10. On a perusal of the above documents it can be seen that there was a steady increase in the salary of the petitioner from 1992 onwards and as such i do not find any grounds to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 and he was getting a monthly salary of Rs.7000/- during the year 2003. Therefore, his notional income for the purpose of assessing the loss of disability is fixed at Rs.7000/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: - Fracture right femur. - Lacerated wound right eye brow 2x1/2 cm. - Contusion right maxilla. - Abrasion both knees. 13. As per Exhibit X1 disability certificate the petitioner suffered 21.6% permanent physical disability. It was issued by the medical board. The Tribunal, however, scaled down the percentage of disability of the petitioner to 21%, 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 ``` MACA NO.620 OF 2016 ``` ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:22757 ``` 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 21.6%. 14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 33 years. Therefore, 40% 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 16, 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.4,06,425/-. 15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded Rs.72000/being the income for 12 months @Rs.6000/-. Since the notional income of the petitioner is re-fixed at Rs.7000, towards loss of earning he is entitled to get a sum of Rs.84000/-(7000x12 months) 16. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.25,000/- was ``` MACA NO.620 OF 2016 ``` ``` 8 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:22757 ``` 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 182 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.75000/-, and Rs.40000/- 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.877677 **/-** , 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 (in Rs.)**| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earning|72000|84000| |2|Medical and miscellaneous<br>expenses|242252|242252| |3|Bystander’s expenses|15000|15000| ``` MACA NO.620 OF 2016 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:22757 ``` **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> 9<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> |4|Transportation charges and<br>others|8500|8500| |---|---|---|---| |5|Extra nourishment|6000|6000| |6|Damage to clothing etc.|500|500| |7|Pain and sufferings|40000|75000| |8|Loss of amenities in life|25000|40000| |9|Compensation for disability and<br>loss of earning power|241920|406425| ||||| ||**Total**|**651172**|**877677**| ||Enhanced /Reduced Rs.**226505**||| 20. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.877677/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Seven 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, 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** Pvv