IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY 2024 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1946 MACA NO. 3066 OF 2015 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 22.07.2015 IN OPMV NO.703 OF 2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOZHIKODE APPELLANT/S:

SUBAIDA.M.C AGED 39 YEARS D/O.AHAMMED KUTTY, MAMBIDICHALIL HOUSE, ONGALORAMMA, OMASSERY, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE.

BY ADV SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT/S:

ICICI LOMBARAD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE, 414, VEAR SAVARKAR, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI, PIN-400 001.

BY ADV SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 03^rd day of July, 2024 The appellant sustained the following injuries in a road traffic accident on

27.02.2013;

“1. Fracture of right tibia and fibula

2. Fracture of lower end of right radius

3. Multiple aberrations eshimities

4. Type-I bone fracture both bone right leg (Segmental tibia)

5. Edema plus puncture wound right leg distal pulse

6. Extensive aberration right forearm.”

2. In the claim petition filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the appellant averred that she was aged 40 years at the time of accident and was working as a cook, earning Rs.500/- per day. She therefore claimed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal having awarded only Rs.1,90,600/- as compensation, this appeal is filed.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal committed gross illegality in unilaterally fixing the appellant’s monthly income as Rs.5,000/-, overlooking the petitioner's averment that, as a cook, she had been earning Rs.500/- per day. It is contended that even going by the decision of the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the notional income of the appellant would be Rs.9,000/- per month and at least that amount ought to have been taken.

4. The next ground of challenge is against the grant of only Rs.25,000/- as compensation towards pain and suffering. For this, attention is drawn to the injuries and the prolonged treatment for 23 days undergone by the appellant. It is further contended that compensation ought to have been awarded for reduction in future prospects also.

4. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that just compensation has been paid by the Tribunal under all heads and hence, no interference is warranted in this appeal.

5. As rightly contended by the Counsel for the appellant, in the absence of evidence regarding income of the appellant, the Tribunal ought to have followed the decision in Ramachandrappa (supra) and fixed the notional income accordingly. As the accident had occurred in the year 2013, the appellant’s notional income would be Rs.9,000/- per month.

6. I also find some merit in the contention regarding grant of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant had sustained Fracture of right tibia and fibula as well as lower end of right radius and had undergone 23 days of inpatient treatment. Taking the above factors into consideration, I find the appellant to be entitled for Rs.50,000/-

as compensation for pain and suffering.

7. In the absence of specific medical evidence regarding loss of future prospects due to the accident, the contention in that regard can only be rejected.

Based on the above discussion, the compensation under the above heads is recalculated as under;

Sl. No.	Head of claim	Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.	Amount fixed in appeal Rs.		Enhanced compensation Rs.
1	Loss of earning		30,000 9000x 6		54,000 54,000- 30,000	24,000
2	Pain and suffering	25,000			50,000 50,000- 25,000	25,000
3	Loss of income due to permanent disability	99,000	9000x 12x15 x11/ 100	1,78,200 1,78,200-	99,000	79,200
	Total	1,54,000		2,82,200		1,28,200

The enhanced amount shall be paid to the appellant within three

Click Here to Read the rest of this document