Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1073 (KER)

Sabeesh @ Sabeesh Kumar, S/O. Balan v. Mammath Koya, S/o. Alikunhi

2025-04-11

C.PRATHEEP KUMAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.927/2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, 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 Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 25.12.2013. According to the petitioner, on 25.12.2013 at about 2.30 p.m., while he was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle, a car bearing reg.no.KL-11-N-4726 driven by the 2 nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle and as a result of which, he fell down and 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.46,23,000/-. 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 C1. 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.8,22,420/- 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.K.Muhammed Salahudhin, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.E.M.Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd 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 working as supervisor cum coolie, earning Rs.800 per day, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.5000/-. 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 supervisor cum coolie, earning Rs.800 per day, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.5000/-. Though the petitioner has produced Ext.A9 certificate stating that he was working as supervisor and concrete worker getting a daily income of Rs.800/- he has not examined any witness to prove the same. 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 2013 will come to Rs.9000/-. 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.9000/-. 12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries: i. Fracture Sacrum. ii. Fracture lower end radius comminuted right iii. Fracture left radius with radio ulnar joint dislocation. iv. Fracture left forearm. v. Pelvic sumphasis diastasis vi. Galeazzia fracture dislocation left. vii. Pelvic injury combined type. viii. ORIF pubic symphysis. ix. Percutaneous llio Sacral screw fixation left. x. ORIF distal radius right. xi. ORIF left radius with K wire fixation. xii. Public diastasis with anterior column fracture left side. xiii. Undisplaced anterior column fracture right. xiv. Type II Sacral fracture left side. xv. Comminuted intraarticular fracture left distal radius xvi. Neural foramen involving the left lamina of SI and Sl and S2 spinuous processes. xvii. Public diastases noted with adjacent hematoma. Linear Haematoma noted in the perivesical region, retro and extraperitonieal space of the pelvis and lower abdomen. xviii. Thickening of the both recti, predomenently on the left side with anterior abdominal wall haematoma extending to the extraperitoneal space. xix. Thickening of the left obturator internus and left pyriformis muscles. xx. Internal scress fixation across Sl of the sccrum for oblique fracture extending from Sl to S4 in its left lateral hall across the left sacral foramina. xxi. Internal fixation across the symphysis pubis. xxii. Diffuse scrotal wall edema. xxiii. Pain in pelvic region left. xxiv. Pain in both wrist xxv. xx. Internal scress fixation across Sl of the sccrum for oblique fracture extending from Sl to S4 in its left lateral hall across the left sacral foramina. xxi. Internal fixation across the symphysis pubis. xxii. Diffuse scrotal wall edema. xxiii. Pain in pelvic region left. xxiv. Pain in both wrist xxv. Linear undisplaced fracture of the anterior column of the right hectabulum. xxvi. DCP done under general anesthesia. xxvii. Comminuted intraarticular fracture of right wrist. 13. As per Exhibit C1 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, the petitioner suffered 31% permanent physical disability. 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 31%, as fixed by the Tribunal. 14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 37 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 15, 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.7,03,080/-. 15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded Rs.45000/- being the income for 9 months @Rs.5000/-. Since the notional income of the petitioner is re-fixed at Rs.9000/-, towards loss of earning he is entitled to get a sum of Rs.81,000/- (9000 x 9 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. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side. 17. The petitioner sustained serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 14 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.75,000/- and Rs.50000/- respectively. 18. Towards ‘extra nourishment’, the tribunal has not awarded any amount. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Rs.5000/- is awarded on the aforesaid head. 19. 18. Towards ‘extra nourishment’, the tribunal has not awarded any amount. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Rs.5000/- is awarded on the aforesaid head. 19. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 20. Therefore, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.12,60,900/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: Sl. No. Head of Claim Amount awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Amount Awarded in Appeal (in Rs.) 1 Loss of earnings due to the accident 45000 81000 2 Transport to hospital 2200 2200 3 Extra nourishment Nil 5000 4 Hospitalisation for 14 days 9800 9800 5 Medical expense 251120 251120 6 Future medical expense 83700 83700 7 Pain and suffering 25000 75000 8 Loss of amenities 15000 50000 9 Loss of disability. 390600 703080 Total 822420 1260900 Amount enhanced Rs. 438480 21. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.12,60,900/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Sixty Thousand Nine 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, excluding interest for a period of 427 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, 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.