Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 15048
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
SASI – Appellant
Versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD – Respondent
MACA 3024/2016
SRI.BABY MATHEW, DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY
The court established that compensation must reflect the severity of injuries and permanent disability, emphasizing the need for just and reasonable assessment based on established legal precedents.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident - Petitioner claimed Rs.16,00,000/- for injuries sustained when hit by a tempo van - Tribunal awarded Rs.15,79,300/-; appeal for enhancement filed - Court found negligence on part of the driver and assessed total compensation at Rs.37,82,800/- considering various heads of claim including pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and bystander expenses. (Paras 2, 6, 20)
(B) Compensation - Determination of just and reasonable compensation - Court emphasized the need to consider the nature of injuries and disability in fixing compensation, referencing Supreme Court decisions for guidance on notional income and compensation for pain and suffering. (Paras 10, 15, 18)
(C) Disability - Assessment of permanent disability - Tribunal concluded petitioner was totally disabled and dependent on others for daily activities, leading to a significant increase in compensation awarded. (Paras 13, 19)
(D) Interest - Court directed interest on the awarded amount at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realization, excluding a delay period. (Paras 21, 22)
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2025
The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.252/2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad 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 17.11.2007. According to the petitioner, on 17.11.2007 at about 6.45 p.m., while he was riding pillion on a motorcycle, a tempo van bearing Registration No.KL- 9/E-7628 driven by the 2nd respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and hit him down. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries.
3. The 1st respondent is the owner and the 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.16,00,000/-.
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.
5. The evidence in the case consists of documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A11 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.15,79,300/- 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.Baby Mathew, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Smt.Dr.Elizabeth Varkey, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent.
10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid 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 the petitioner, he was working as rubber tapper by profession, earning Rs.4,500/- per month. The Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.5,000/-.
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 2007 will come to Rs.6,000/-. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for fixing the notional income at Rs.6000/-. 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 2007 will come to Rs.6,000/-, 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 inRamachandrappa (supra), the notional income of the petitioner is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.6,000/-.
12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries:
Severe head injury in the form of left temporo-parietal extra-dural hematoma, subdural hematoma, bi frontal hemorrhagic contusion, left temporal bone fracture, bi-frontal compound comminuted depressed fracture, right parieto-occipital subdural h ematoma, pneumoncephalus, diffuse SAH, right hemo- pneumothorax and exposure keratitis right eye.
13. As per Ext.X1 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board his permanent physical disability due to cognitive dysfunction was assessed as 25%, permanent disability due to residual right hemiparesis with difficulty in walking was assessed as 25% and neuroligical disability was assessed as 57.81%. After examining the petitioner, the tribunal noted that the petitioner was not responding to questions, was
