Kerala High Court
Mahinkutty vs Dominic Ceaser Pazhampilly on 2 April, 2025
MACA NO. 1239 OF 2016
1
2025:KER:28345
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947
MACA NO. 1239 OF 2016
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 30.10.2015 IN OPMV NO.932 OF 2011 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER :-
MAHINKUTTY, S/O.MARAKKAR, KAKKATTUSSERY HOUSE
PONJASSERY, MUDICKAL P.O. PERUMBAVOOR-683547.
BY ADV SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 :-
1 DOMINIC CEASER PAZHAMPILLY
CEASER PAZHAMPILLY, PAZHAMPILLY HOUSE
PUTHUVASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY P.O., ALUVA-683585.
2 IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
4TH ADND 5TH FLOOR, IFFCO TOWER PLOT NO.3,
SECTOR-29, GURGANON-122001.
BY ADVS.
P.JACOB MATHEW
MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 1239 OF 2016
2
2025:KER:28345
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.932 of 2011 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 (a)of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 17.06.2011. According to the petitioner, on 17.06.2011 at about 10.30 p.m., while the petitioner was travelling in a car bearing Registration No.KL-41/D-947 driven by the 2 nd respondent through Angamaly - Aluva National Highway and while so, the car hit against an electric post and thereby, he sustained serious injuries.
3. The 1st respondent is the owner and 3rd 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.31,00,000/- limited to Rs.10,00,000/-.
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.
MACA NO. 1239 OF 2016 3 2025:KER:28345
5. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A7 and C1.
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.211700/- 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.A.N.Santhosh, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.P.Jacob Mathew, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd 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 a businessman, earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.5,000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable.
MACA NO. 1239 OF 2016 4 2025:KER:28345
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 2011 will come to Rs.8,000/-. In Exts.A1 FIS itself it is stated that the petitioner used to hire Hitachi from Tamil Nadu and bring the same to Kerala and sublease the same to others. However, there is no reliable evidence to prove the actual income of the petitioner, which he derived from his business. Therefore, the petitioner being a businessman by profession, his notional income is fixed at Rs.9,000/-, for the purpose of computing the loss of disability.
12. In the accident the petitioner sustained abrasions chest, chest pain, abrasion both knee, blunt trauma chest and fracture left 3rd to 7th ribs.
13. As per Exhibit C1 disability certificate the petitioner suffered 18% 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 18%, as fixed by the Tribunal.
14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 43 years. Therefore, 25% of the monthly income is to be added towards future prospects, MACA NO. 1239 OF 2016 5 2025:KER:28345 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.3,40,200/-.
15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.15,000/- being the income for 3 months @Rs.5,000/-. 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 6 months. Therefore, towards 'loss of income' the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.54,000/- (9,000 x 6 months).
16. Towards the head 'pain and sufferings', the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.15,000/- was awarded and towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.1,500/- 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 6 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', 'loss of amenities of life' and 'extra nourishment' are on MACA NO. 1239 OF 2016 6 2025:KER:28345 the lower side and hence they are enhanced to Rs.50,000/-, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.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 petitioner/appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.4,81,200/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference:
Sl.
No. Head of Claim Amount awarded by Amount Awarded in
Tribunal (in Rs.) Appeal (in Rs.)
1 Loss of earnings 15,000 54,000
2 Transport to hospital 1500 1500
3 Extra nourishment 1500 3000
4 Damage to clothes 1000 1000
5 Pain and suffering 25,000 50,000
6 Loss of amenities 15,000 30,000
7 Permanent disability 1,51,200 3,40,200
8 Attendance charges 1500 1500
Total 2,11,700 4,81,200
Enhanced amount- Rs. 2,69,500
MACA NO. 1239 OF 2016
7
2025:KER:28345
20. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the 3rd respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.4,81,200/- (Rupees Four Lakh Eighty One Thousand Two Hundred 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 SMA