Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 36513
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Sudha, J
SANTHOSHKUMAR K.D. – Appellant
Versus
DAISAMMA VARKEY – Respondent
MACA NO. 474 OF 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.THOMAS K.C.KUNNATHOOR
For the Respondents: SHRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN
Court affirmed the principles of just compensation, acknowledging the need to assess notional income and disability equitably in personal injury cases.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Compensation in motor accident - Appeal against the compensation awarded in O.P. (MV) No.366/2016 - Tribunal awarded ₹5,14,800/- with 8.5% interest, which was contested - Tribunal's finding regarding notional income and percentage of disability challenged - Notional income fixed at ₹10,000/- based on judicial precedent in the absence of proof - Compensation for permanent disability enhanced - Total compensation rounded to ₹6,73,170/- with 8% interest. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
(B) Legal Principle - Appellate court's role is to ascertain if there exists any infirmity in the lower court's findings warranting interference. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sustained grievous injuries from an accident caused by the negligent driving of a second respondent's motorcycle, leading to a claim for compensation.
Findings of Court:
The appeal led to an enhancement of the awarded compensation based on established notional income and disability assessments.
Issues: Challenges to the adequacy of compensation and evaluation of income and disability.
Ratio Decidendi: The court noted that lack of evidence cannot diminish the claim for just compensation, reiterating statutory provisions for calculating damages.
Result: Appeal allowed with enhanced compensation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. injury sustained during a motorcycle accident due to negligence. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 2. court's consideration of the appeal and legal standards. (Para 7) |
| 3. compensation debate focusing on income assessment and disability percentage. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. court's findings led to modification and enhancement of compensation. (Para 11) |
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.366/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 29/06/2019. The respondents herein are the respondents 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
11/06/2015 at about 9:45 a.m., while he was pillion riding on motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-35-/F-7043 through Kattachira-Ramankari road, motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-04/AC-6464 ridden by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries.
3. The first respondent-owner and the second respondent-rider remained ex-parte.
4. The third respondent-insurer filed written statement admitting the policy. The averments in the petition regarding age, occupation and income were denied.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A8 and Ext.X1 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was adduced by the third respondent.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent-rider of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹5,14,800/- together with interest @ 8.5% 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 heads is challenged by the claim petitioner-
Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the latter, a 43 year old welder was earning ₹20,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹6,000/-, which is quite low and hence needs to be enhanced. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that in the absence of any materials to prove the income, the income fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable and does not call for any interference.
9.1. Ext.A5 salary certificate dated 29/05/2019 was produced to prove the income of the claim petitioner. The Tribunal was not inclined to accept the certificate as the person who issued the same was not examined. I do not find any infirmity in the finding regarding the same as the contents of the certificate has not been proved by examining the person who issued the same. The claim that the claim petitioner was a welder is disputed in the written statement filed by the third respondent- insurer. In the absence of any evidence to prove either the occupation or income, I find that relying on the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd , (2011) 13 SCC 236, the notional income can be fixed at10,000/-.
Percentage of disability.
10. The learned counsel for the claim petitioner points out that the disability of 20% fixed by the Tribunal is wrong in the light of Ext.X1 certificate. According to him, the claim petitioner is still unable to work and therefore, the percentage of disability ought to have been fixed as 20.15% as fixed by the Board in Ext.X1. Ext.X1 certificate reads thus-
“STANDING DISABILITY ASS
