IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH 2025/23RD PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 3229 OF 2014 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 17.12.2023 IN OPMV NO.217 OF 2011 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA.

APPELLANT:

ANEES ARIF, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, POTTAYIL HOUSE, CHUNDALE POST, CHUNDALE VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

BY ADV SMT.CELINE JOSEPH RESPONDENT:

THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, BRANCH OFFICE, NOORNAL BUILDING, MYSORE ROAD, SULTHAN BATHERY - 673 621.

BY ADV SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,UNITED INDIA INSU THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2025 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.217/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Wayanad, Kalpetta 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 Section

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 23.11.2010. According to the petitioner, on 23.11.2010 at about 1.30 p.m., while the petitioner was riding a motorcycle, a jeep bearing Registration No.TN-28/V-9549 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle and as a result of the accident, the petitioner fell down and sustained serious injuries.

3. The 1^st respondent is the driver, the 2^nd respondent is the owner and 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the o 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.4,94,000/- limited to Rs.3,00,000/-.

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 the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A13 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.3,25,352/- 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.Celine Jospeh, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.P.K.Manoj Kumar, 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 working as a driver, earning Rs.6,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.3,000/-.

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 2010 will come to Rs.7,500/-.Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for fixing the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.7,500/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable. Since the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2010) will come to Rs.7,500/-, in order to award just and reasonable compensation, in the light of a dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa (supra), the notional income of the petitioner is