Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 14087
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Sudha, J
SHABU AGED 53 YEARS S/O. SADANANDAN – Appellant
Versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. – Respondent
MACA 639/2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.N.SANTHOSH
For the Respondents: SMT.K.SHERIN MOHAN, SRI.AGINOV MATHAPPAN
The court affirmed the necessity for accurate assessment of notional income and disability in compensation claims, ensuring just compensation reflects actual loss.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal against the award of compensation - The claim petitioner challenged the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal, arguing for a higher notional income and disability percentage. The court increased the notional income to ₹10,500/- per month and the disability percentage to 19%, ultimately enhancing the total compensation to ₹5,53,040/- with 8% interest. (Paras 8, 9)
(B) Compensation - The court emphasized that compensation must reflect the actual loss suffered by the claimant, considering injuries and their impact on the claimant's life. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
The claim petitioner was injured in a motor accident while riding as a pillion on a motorcycle, resulting in grievous injuries and a claim for compensation of ₹10,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded ₹4,54,500/- which was contested in this appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court modified the Tribunal's award, increasing the compensation based on the evidence provided regarding the claimant's income and injuries sustained.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the Tribunal's findings on compensation were erroneous or warranted modification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Tribunal's assessment of notional income and disability percentage was incorrect, warranting an adjustment to ensure just compensation.
Result: The appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation awarded.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the claim petitioner in O.P. (MV) No.306/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, N.Paravur (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 01/02/2019. The sole respondent herein is the second respondent/insurer in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.
2. According to the claim petitioner, on 28/03/2016 at
08:30 a.m., he was travelling as a pillion rider in motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-7/BC-1076 through Kongorpilly - Panayikulam road and when he reached the place by name Millupady, lorry bearing registration no.KL-41/F-2569 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down, as a result of which he was thrown on to the road whereby he sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner is an employee at ₹
FACT and was earning 20,000/-. Hence, the petition claiming a ₹
sum of 10,00,000/- as compensation.
3. The 2nd respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle. It was contended that there was no negligence on the part of the first respondent. In fact, negligence was on the side of the rider of the motor cycle. The age, job, income, nature of injuries and amount claimed under various heads were disputed.
4. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A10 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was produced by the respondents.
5. The Tribunal on a consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the 1st respondent-driver of the offending vehicle resulting ₹
in the incident and hence awarded an amount of 4,54,500/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioner has come up in appeal. 6. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.
7. Heard both sides
8. The award of compensation by the tribunal under the following heads are challenged by the claim petitioner.
Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the notional income that has been fixed by the ₹
Tribunal at 9,000/- per month is on the lower side as even a coolie in the year 2016 as per the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.
₹
[(2011) 13 SCC 236] is entitled to get an amount of 10,500/- per month. This argument is not challenged by the learned Counsel for the respondent/insurer. Hence in the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), the notional income of the ₹
claim petitioner is fixed at 10,500/- per month.
Per centage of disability The tribunal has fixed the disability of the claim petitioner at 18% based on Ext.A7. The learned Counsel for the claim petitioner drew my attention to the disability certificate which says that the disability is 19%. The disability fixed at 18% by the Tribunal seems to a mistake. Hence relying on Ext.A7 disability certificate, which is not disputed, the percentage of disability of the claim petitioner is fixed at 18%. There is no dispute regarding the multiplier 13 that has been applied.
Loss of earnings ₹
An amount of 2,40,000/- was claimed towards loss of ₹
earnings. However, the Tribunal granted 27,000/- taking loss of earnings for a period of three months. According to the learned counsel for the claim petitioner, in the light of the injuries sustained, the loss of earnings for atleast five months ought to have been given by the tribunal.
Going by Ext.A4 wound certificate, the following are the injuries sustained -
“1. Abrasions over medial mallelous region.
2. L1 burst fracture”
E
