Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 39299
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Sudha, J
SASIKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
SINOUSH, ASWIN, THE MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD – Respondent
MACA NO. 1054 OF 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.V.BINOY RAM
For the Respondents: SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.), SMT.K.S.SANTHI, SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
The court determined that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was insufficient and provided a corrective assessment based on evidence of disability and economic impact.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal against the compensation awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Claim denied negligence by insurance company - Tribunal found negligence and awarded ₹2,24,650/- as compensation, later modified in appeal to ₹3,86,090/- for losses including permanent disability. (Paras 1, 2, 6, 13)
(B) Compensation - The tribunal's assessment of notional income and percentage of disability were challenged - The appellate court determined higher compensation based on proper assessment of evidence and relevant factors. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The claim petitioner challenged the tribunal's decision on the grounds of inadequate compensation and evaluation of his injuries following a motorcycle accident caused by the second respondent.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court enhanced the compensation to ₹3,86,090/- based on adjusted findings of disability and economic loss.
Issues: Whether the assessment of compensation by the Tribunal was justified and adequate, particularly concerning notional income and disability percentage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Tribunal's fixation of notional income and disability was erroneous, necessitating recalibration based on concrete evidence and guidelines established in prior case law.
Result: Appeal allowed by enhancing the compensation amount.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to the appeal and original tribunal findings on compensation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of injuries and challenges to the tribunal's compensation decision regarding notional income. (Para 6 , 9) |
| 3. court's assessment of negligence and determination of fair compensation. (Para 12) |
| 4. outcome of the appeal and adjustments in compensation awarded. (Para 13) |
J U D G M E N T
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the claim petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.1332/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 16/11/2019. 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 31/08/2017 at about 09:15 a.m., while he was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-46-B-6744 through the Kodungallur-Guruvayoor NH17 road and when he reached the place by name Kothakulam, motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-47-F-3853, ridden by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. An amount of ₹3,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.
3. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/rider remained ex parte.
4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part of the second respondent/rider. It was also contended that the amount claimed was excessive.
5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the respondent. No documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents. Ext.X1 is marked as C.D.
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/rider of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹2,24,650/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation 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 was earning an amount of ₹25,000 per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹9,000 only, which is quite low in the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. , (2011) 13 SCC 236
9.1. In the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), I find that the notional income of the claim petitioner can be fixed at ₹11,000/-.
Loss of earnings
10. The materials on record show that the claim petitioner sustained the following injuries:-
“Lateral tibial plateau comminuted fracture of left knee.”
He was hospitalized for a period of 4 days. Therefore, taking into account the materials on record, I find that in all probability, he might have been unable to work for a period of 6 months. Therefore, the amount to which he would be entitled is ₹11,000x 6 months =₹66,000/-
Bystander expenses
11. The incident took place on 31/08/2017. Therefore, I find that bystander expenses at the rate of ₹500/- per day for a period of 4 days can be granted, that is, ₹500/-x 4 days=₹2,000/-.
Percentage of disability
12. As per Exhibit A12 disability certificate, the disability assessed is 12.09%. The Tribunal fixed the disability at 6% which according to the learner counsel for the claim petitioner is erroneous in the light of
