Saji Ithappiri v. Johnson P.T. and The New Insurance Co. Ltd.

``` 2025:KER:26393 ``` ``` MACA NO.1766 OF 2014 ``` ``` 1 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` MACA NO. 1766 OF 2014 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 04.07.2012 IN OPMV NO.301 OF ``` ``` 2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PERUMBAVOOR ``` ## **`APPELLANT/PETITIONER:`** ``` SAJI ITHAPPIRI S/O.ITHAPPIRI,CHIRAPURATH HOUSE,THALAKKODU.P.O. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.ALEX M.THOMBRA SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 JOHNSON P.T PANAKKAL HOUSE,ERATTAKULANGARA ROAD,PAHALA.P.O,PIN-682012.`** - **`2 THE NEW INSURANCE CO.LTD KOTTAKKAL ARYA VAIDYASALA BUILDING,M.R.ROAD,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682016.`** ``` BY ADVS. P.JACOB MATHEW MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26393 ``` ``` MACA NO.1766 OF 2014 ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` MACA NO.1766 OF 2014 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26393 ``` ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.301/2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, 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 13.11.2006. According to the petitioner, on 13.11.2006 at about 6.30 p.m., while he was riding a motorcycle bearing reg.no.KL-17/A-3755 through Aluva- Perumbavoor road, a Maruti Omni Van bearing reg.no.KL-07/S-7025 driven by the 1[st] respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motorcycle and as a result he fell down and sustained serious injuries. 3. The 1[st] respondent is the driver cum owner and the 2[nd] 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.5,41,000/limited to Rs.5,00,000/-. ``` 2025:KER:26393 ``` ``` MACA NO.1766 OF 2014 ``` ``` 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 A13 and B1. 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.2,52,790/- 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.Philip T. Varghese, the learned Counsel appearing for the 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 ``` 2025:KER:26393 ``` ``` 5 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` MACA NO.1766 OF 2014 ``` 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 JCB Driver, earning Rs.5000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.3500/-. 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.5500/-.Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.5500/-. 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.5500/-, 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.5500/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: - _Comminuted fracture occipital bone right side_ ``` 2025:KER:26393 ``` ``` MACA NO.1766 OF 2014 ``` ``` 6 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** - Fracture right mastoid antrum with extension of fracture into base of the skull - Cerebral Oedema - Soft tissue density in sphenoid simuses, Right mastoid air cells and right EAM-suggestive of bleed - Multiple abrasions right elbow and forearm, right ankle and right shoulder. 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. Since the notional income of the petitioner is re-fixed at Rs.5500/-, towards loss of earning he is entitled to get a sum of Rs.33000/(5500 x 6 months) 15. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.40000/- and Rs.5000/- was awarded on the head ‘disfiguration’. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.20000/- was awarded, towards ‘bystander expenses’ Rs.2200/- was awarded and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.3000/- was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side. ``` 2025:KER:26393 ``` ``` MACA NO.1766 OF 2014 ``` ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 16. The petitioner sustained serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 22 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’,‘disfiguration’, 'loss of amenities of life', ‘bystander expenses’ and 'extra nourishment' are on the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.50000/-, Rs.25000/-, Rs.30000/-, Rs.4000/- and Rs.5000/- 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. 18. Therefore, the petitioner/appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.3,08,590/-, 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|21000|33000| |2|Transport to hospital|1000|1000| |3|Extra nourishment|3000|5000| |4|Damage to clothings|250|250| |5|Bystander expense|2200|4000| ``` MACA NO.1766 OF 2014 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26393 ``` **==> picture [8 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> 8<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> |6|Medical expense|160340|160340| |---|---|---|---| |7|Pain and suffering|40000|50000| |8|Loss of amenities|20000|30000| |9|Disfiguration|5000|25000| ||**Total**|**252790**|**308590**| ||Enhanced**55800**||| 19. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.3,08,590/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, excluding interest for a period of 617 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. 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** Pvv