The court reaffirmed the need for just compensation in personal injury claims, adjusting awards based on medical evidence and established precedents.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR MONDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947 MACA NO. 1028 OF 2017 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 16.01.2016 IN OPMV NO.635 OF

2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

ASHARAF AGED 42 YEARS,S/O AYAMMAD, POOKKOOTTUPURAYIL HOUSE, AVILORA P.O.KIZHAKOTH, KOZHIKODE BY ADV SRI.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 SAKEER S/O MUHAMMED, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THACHAMPOYIL P.O.THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE- 673 573

2 USMAN AGED 27 YEARS, S/O UMMARKUTTY, THUVAKUNNUMMAL (H), KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE- 673 001

3 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED

2ND FLOOR, CITADEL ARCADE, R.C. ROAD, OPP. TAGORE CENTENARY HALL, KOZHIKODE- 673 001 BY SRI. THAPAS VARMA A., STANDING COUNSEL -R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T Dated this the 7^th day of April, 2025 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.635/2014 on the file of the principal 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 4-11-2013. According to the petitioner, on 4-11-2013 at about 9.30 a.m., while he was riding pillion on a motorcycle, he was knocked down by a goods autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-57E-832 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of the accident, the petitioner 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.13,74,000/-.

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 A10, 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.5,68,000 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. Mohammad Salahudhin, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri. Tapas Varma A., 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 a coolie, earning Rs.600/- per day, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.5,000/-. 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 2013 will come to Rs.9,000/-. Since the petitioner could not prove his job or income as claimed in the OP, in