Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 39122
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Sudha, J
Sreeju – Appellant
Versus
The Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited – Respondent
MACA NO. 975 OF 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT. M.R. Jayalatha
For the Respondents: SHRI. JOMY GEORGE, SHRI. R. PADMARAJ, SHRI. P.J. ANTONY JOSEPH MARIADAS, SRI. DEEPAK MOHAN, SMT. CHITRA N. DAS, SHRI. RISHAB S.
The court emphasized the need for proper evidence in awarding compensation and established a higher notional income standard, enhancing total damages due to substantial injuries.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal against award of compensation - Claim arising from a motor vehicle accident with substantial injuries - Initially awarded compensation reduced; court enhanced notional income and modified compensation accordingly. (Paras 6, 9, 14)
(B) Evaluation of notional income - Determination of compensation must consider evidence, even in absence of oral testimonies - Court relied on prior case law to ascertain a just compensation. (Paras 9.1, 10)
(C) Injuries sustained included severe head and leg injuries - Hospitalization for 20 days led to significant loss of wages and require compensation adjustments. (Paras 10-13)
(D) Court upheld Tribunal's findings on negligence against the bus driver while adjusting awarded amounts across various compensation heads. (Paras 8, 14) (E)
Result: Appeal allowed in part with enhanced compensation totaling ₹2,19,483/- with interest from the date of petition; directed immediate deposit by the insurance company.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the claim and initial compensation awarded. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. discussion on the insufficiency of evidence for original compensation claims. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 3. enhanced compensation assessed based on significant injuries and loss of income. (Para 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. final outcome of the appeal including enhanced compensation details. (Para 14) |
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.1352/2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 14/06/2018. 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
05/03/2012 at about 02:00 p.m. while he was riding motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-2/S-5126 through the Pavumpa- Manappally public road and when he reached near Pavumba bridge, private stage carriage bus bearing registration no.KL-23-A 4302 driven 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; the second respondent-driver and the fourth respondent-conductor of the offending bus remained ex-parte.
4. The third respondent-insurer filed written statement admitting the policy. The amount claimed under various heads was contended to be exorbitant.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A11 series were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent-driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹1,42,483/- 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 the learned counsel for the appellant.
There is no representation for the third respondent.
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 businessman was earning ₹10,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹6,000/-, which is quite low and hence the same needs to be appropriately enhanced.
9.1. Though the claim was that he was earning ₹10,000/- per month and that he was running a business of his own, no materials was produced to substantiate the same.
However, in the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd , (2011) 13 SCC 236, I find that the notional income can be fixed at ₹8,500/-.
Loss of earnings
10. The materials on record show that the claim petitioner sustained the following injuries-
“ 1. Head injury – Subdural Haematoma.
2. L/W left leg with avulsed skin.
3. L/W chin and right up hp.
4. Fracture Foci of hyper dencity on the right globus.
5. Fracture pallidus.”
He was hospitalized for a period of 20 days in two different spells. In all probability, he might have been unable to work for a period of 10 months and therefore, he will be entitled to an amount of (₹8,500/- x 10 months = ₹85,000/-).
Bystander's expenses
11. The incident took place on 05/03/2012.
Therefore, I find that compensation at the rate of ₹250/- per day for a period of 20 days would be just and reasonable. (₹250/- x 20 = 5,000/-)
Compensation for pain and sufferings
12. In the light of the injuries sustained which i
