Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 37340
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Sudha, J
SANTHA – Appellant
Versus
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED – Respondent
MACA NO. 725 OF 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri. George Sebastian, Sri. M.D. Simy
For the Respondents: Sri. Shaji P. Mathew
The appellant's notional income was inadequately assessed, warranting modification to ensure fair compensation reflecting actual earnings.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal against the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Claim petitioner sustained serious injuries due to a vehicle accident - The Tribunal found negligence on part of the driver and awarded ₹2,57,300/- as compensation. (Para 6)
(B) Compensation - The claim petitioner challenged the notional income fixed by Tribunal, asserting it was too low and requesting modification based on evidence suggesting a higher earning capacity - The appeal court found merit in challenging the income assessment and adjusted the compensation accordingly, enhancing it by ₹58,476/- totaling ₹3,15,776/-. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The claim petitioner was injured in a vehicle accident and sought compensation for losses and injuries sustained. (Para 2)
Findings of Court:
The appeal court modified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, enhancing it to a total sum of ₹3,15,776/- due to underestimation of earnings. (Para 10)
Issues: The primary issue was whether the findings of the Tribunal had any infirmity, particularly regarding the notional income considered for the claim. (Para 7)
Ratio Decidendi: The appeal court concluded that the notional income was not adequately fixed, thus warranted an adjustment reflecting the claim petitioner's actual earning capacity in line with judicial precedents. (Paras 9, 10)
Result: The appeal is allowed with enhanced compensation amounting to ₹3,15,776/- along with interest. (Para 10)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant claims injuries from an accident. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. insurer denies liability; tribunal finds negligence. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court considers evidence for compensation. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court assessed the need for fair compensation reflecting true earning. (Para 7) |
| 5. court addresses disputes regarding compensation. (Para 9) |
| 6. appeal results in enhanced compensation. (Para 10) |
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.119/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 16/12/2019. The sole respondent herein is the third respondent 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
26/09/2016 at around 07:00 p.m., while she was trying to cross the Piravom – Koothattukulam road at Kakkoor Madom Junction Bhagom, van bearing registration no.KL-29/A-2269 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked her down, as a result of which she sustained serious injuries.
3. The first respondent-owner and second respondent-driver remained ex parte.
4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy but denying the liability. Averments in the petition regarding age, occupation and monthly income were denied.
5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A14 and Ext.C1 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent-driver of the offending van resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹2,57,300/- together with interest @ 7% 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 are challenged by the claim petitioner-
Notional Income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the latter, a coolie aged 48 years was earning ₹25,000/- per month at the time of the incident. The Tribunal has fixed the notional income at ₹8,000/- only, which is quite low even going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd , (2011) 13 SCC
236.
In the absence of any evidence to prove the monthly income, notional income of the claim petitioner can be fixed as ₹10,500/- going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra).
Loss earnings The materials on record reveal that the following are the injuries sustained by the claim petitioner-
(1) J shaped lacerated wound 10 cm x 4 cm x 3 cm Highly contaminated wound e greuel + grass over (R)
Supra orbital Margin above eyelid (10 stitch).
(2) Right shoulder pain and unable to lifting Arm above shoulder. Rotation cuff injury-complete tear right Rotater cuff.
(3) Bilateral Knee abrasions (4) Dental loss upper three teeth.
(5) Abrasions Nose, R Cheek, both knee and both elbow.
She was hospitalised in two different spells for a total period of six days. Therefore, in all probability, she might have been unable to work for a period of six months. Hence, compensation for loss of earnings would be ₹10,500/- x 6 = ₹63,000/-. The learned counsel for the claim petitioner also challenges the compensation that is awarded under the various other heads also. However, on going through the impugned Award and in the light of the injuries sustained, I find that the same is reasonable and does not call for any interference.
10. The
