Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 27523
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Sudha, J
RAFEEKKA SHAMNAD – Appellant
Versus
PEEYUSH – Respondent
MACA NO. 1305 OF 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY
For the Respondents: SRI.RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY
The court reiterated that claimants must substantiate claims of income, while also ensuring just compensation is awarded for personal injuries faced in accidents.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal - Claimant injured due to negligent driving - Appellant claimed ₹1,00,000/- as compensation - The Tribunal awarded ₹32,850/-, which is disputed as inadequate. (Paras 2, 6, 9)
(B) Compensation - Notional income - The Court held that there was no evidence to substantiate claimant's claim of earning ₹15,000/- per month, hence fixed at ₹9,000/- in line with precedent. (Paras 9, 9.1)
(C) Modification of Award - The Court enhanced total compensation to ₹34,850/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition, excluding delays in filing appeal. (Paras 10)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was injured when hit by a motorcycle, seeking compensation under various heads; the Tribunal's award was challenged for being inadequate
Findings of Court:
The compensation awarded was too low for the injuries sustained, thus modifying the award to ensure adequate compensation
Issues: The central issue was whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was adequate and justified
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that claims of income must be substantiated, but also needs to ensure fair compensation for injuries sustained, thus enhancing the award
Result: Appeal allowed. Compensation modified to ₹34,850/- with enhanced interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's assessment of original tribunal's decisions. (Para 1 , 7) |
| 2. claimant's injuries from accident. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. challenge on notional income estimation. (Para 9) |
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.508/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 02/02/2019. The respondents herein are respondents 1 to 3 respectively 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 12/01/2013 at about
08:45 p.m. while she was standing by the side of road near Adoor Central Toll junction, motorcycle bearing registration no.KL03G7415 ridden by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked her down as a result of which she sustained injuries. A sum of ₹
1,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.
3. The first respondent/rider and the second respondent/owner remained ex parte.
4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle. The age, occupation, income etc. of the claim petitioner were disputed. It was also contended that the compensation claimed was quite excessive.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was adduced by the third respondent/insurer.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent/rider of the offending vehicle resulting in the ₹
incident and hence awarded an amount of 32,850/- 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.
7. 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.
8. Heard both sides
9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following head is challenged by the claim petitioner -
Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the latter, a tailor aged 32 years, was earning an amount of ₹
15,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has fixed the notional ₹
income at 7,000/- only, which is quite low.
9.1. There is no material on record to substantiate the allegation ₹
of the claim petitioner that she was earning 15,000/- at the time of the incident. Therefore, going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v.
Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236, the notional income of the claim petitioner is fixed at ₹
9,000/- per month.
10. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent:
Sl. No.
Head of claim
Amount claimed (in )₹
Amount Awarded by Tribunal (in )₹
Modified in appeal (in )₹
1
Loss of earnings
30,000/-
7,000/-
9,000/-
2
Transport to hospital
1,500/-
1,000/-
1,000/- (No Modification)
3
Extra nourishment
3,000/-
800/-
800/- (No Modification)
4
Damage to clothing
5,000/-
750/-
750/- (No Modification)
5
Medical expenses
20,000/-
500/-
500/- (No Modification)
6
Bystander’s expenses
Nil
800/-
800/- (No Modification)
7
Pain and sufferings
25,000/-
15,000/-
15,000/- (No Modification)
8
Loss of amenities & enjoyment of life
10,000/-
7,000/-
7,000/- (No Modification)
Total
1,29,500/- limited to 1,00,000/-
32,850/-
34,850/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the ₹
compensation by a further amount of 2,000/- (total compensation ₹ ₹ ₹
34,850/- that is, 32,850/- granted by the Tribunal plus 2,000/-
granted in appeal) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of real
