Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 14605
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
MOHAMMED RASHEED – Appellant
Versus
ABDUL KAREEM – Respondent
MACA 3291/2014
SRI.K.M.MOHAMED ABDURAHIMAN, SRI.C.T.BASHEER, SRI.P.J.ANTONY JOSEPH MARIADAS, SRI.R.PADMARAJ
The court enhanced the compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, emphasizing the need for just and reasonable compensation reflecting the severity of injuries and loss of income.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident - Petitioner claimed Rs.1,15,000/- for injuries sustained when hit by a motorcycle - Tribunal awarded Rs.35,712/- which was contested by the petitioner for being inadequate. (Paras 2, 6, 7)
(B) Quantum of Compensation - The court evaluated the petitioner’s income, disability, and pain and suffering, ultimately enhancing the compensation to Rs.1,19,332/- based on established legal principles regarding income and disability. (Paras 10, 14, 17, 20)
(C) Legal Principles - The court referenced the Supreme Court's decisions in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. and National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi to determine notional income and future prospects. (Paras 11, 14)
(D)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's initial compensation was deemed inadequate, leading to a recalculation based on the petitioner’s injuries and loss of income. (Paras 17, 20) (E)
Issues: The main issue was whether the compensation awarded was just and reasonable. (Para 8) (F)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the compensation must reflect the severity of injuries and loss of income, enhancing the amounts awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenities. (Paras 17, 20) (G)
Result: Appeal allowed in part, total compensation modified to Rs.1,19,332/- with interest. (Para 21) (H) Parties: Petitioner (appellant), 1st respondent (driver), 2nd respondent (owner), 3rd respondent (insurer).
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1374 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manjeri 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 28.07.2005. According to the petitioner, on 28.07.2005 at about 08.00 p.m., while he was going to his shop as a pedestrian, a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-10-V-8049 ridden by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit him down and as a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries.
3. The 2nd 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.1,15,000/-.
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 A5 and X1.
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.35712/- 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.P.J.Antony Joseph Mariadas, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent. At the time of argument, there was no representation for the appellant.
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 a mason, earning Rs.7,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.2,500/-. 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 2005 will come to Rs.5,000/-. 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.5,000/-.
12. In the accident the petitioner sustained Dento Alveolar fracture, loss of teeth, fracture of tooth and mobility of tooth, contusion left leg, abrasion right great toe and left knee.
13. As per Exhibit X1 disability certificate the petitioner suffered 3% 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 3%, as fixed by the Tribunal.
14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 35 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.40,320/-.
15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/- being the income for 2 months @Rs.2,500/-.
