Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 24745
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD KUNNAMANGALAM BRANCH – Appellant
Versus
ABHILASH K – Respondent
MACA NO. 2234 OF 2016 | OPMV NO.663 OF 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.DEEPA GEORGE
For the Respondents: SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM, SRI.K.M.FIROZ, SMT.M.SHAJNA, SMT.UMMUL FIDA
Compensation adjustments based on notional income and permanent disability assessment.
Headnote:This case involves a claim for compensation due to injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner alleged negligence, resulting in serious injuries. The Tribunal awarded compensation, which the appellant disputed on grounds of quantum. The court reviewed evidence and adjusted compensation based on notional income, leading to partial acceptance of the appeal. The appeal is allowed in part, directing compensation totaling Rs.29,04,585/- to the petitioner.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the tribunal identified negligence in the accident and awarded initial compensation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments focus on the appropriateness of awarded compensation for income and medical costs. (Para 7 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court concludes with a reasoned assessment of income, disability, and revised compensation. (Para 12 , 15) |
| 4. determination of permanent and functional disability ratings. (Para 13) |
J U D G M E N T Dated this the 31st day of January, 2025 The Respondent No.3 in O.P.(M.V.) No663/2015 on the file of the 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).
e p 2. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 15.9.2013. According to the petitioner, on 15.9.2013 at about 4.30 p.m., while he was travelling in a motor cycle as pillion rider from Calicut to Pilashery, a mini van bearing registration No.KL-11AJ-6626 owned by the 1st respondent and driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on his motor cycle and as a result of which he fell down and sustained serious injuries.
3. 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.
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 oral testimonies of PWs 1 to 3 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A21. 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.32,52,800/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.
7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Respondent No.3 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 Smt. Deepa George, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent/appellant, and Sri. Jacob Abraham, the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
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 3rd respondent is regarding the income of the petitioner fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.15000/-, which according to him, is on the higher side.
11. The petitioner claimed that being a Headload Worker he is getting an income of Rs.15,000/-. In order to prove the same, he has relied upon Exhibit A11 and A12 letters and evidence of PW3, who is the office bearer of a trade union. Though during the cross examination, he admitted that there are documents to prove the details of wage received by the petitioner, the same were not produced to substantiate the claim. In the above circumstances, it is to be held that the petitioner has not succeeded in proving his income as Rs.15,000/- as claimed in the petition. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal was not justified in fixing his monthly income at Rs.15,000/-
12. It is true that the petitioner could not prove his income, as claimed in the OP. However from Ext.A11, A12 and A15 to A17 it is proved that the petitioner was a Headload worker by profession. 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/-. At the same time from as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner being a headload worker, working under sev
