Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 41649
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Sudha, J
ROY MATHEW – Appellant
Versus
SHIFAS M. ISMAYIL – Respondent
MACA NO. 432 OF 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.M.JOSHI
For the Respondents: C.SIVANUNDAN, S.K.AJAY KUMAR, GEORGE A. CHERIAN, SC
Fair compensation requires accurate assessment of notional income and consideration of all injury-related claims.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal - The appellant sustained grievous injuries after being hit by a motorcycle driven negligently - Tribunal determined compensation of ₹4,75,950/- which was challenged on grounds of inadequate assessment regarding notional income and other claims - Court held the notional income at ₹10,500/- per month, enhancing compensation. (Paras 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12)
(B) Compensation - Factors determining fair compensation amount - Including considerations for loss of amenities, pain and suffering, and medical expenses - The findings on compensation were modified leading to a total compensation of ₹6,71,055/- awarded to the appellant. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was riding a motorcycle when it was struck by another driven in a rash manner, resulting in severe injuries, and the Tribunal awarded compensation which was deemed inadequate.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's compensation calculations were challenged, leading to modifications concerning notional income and additional heads of compensation on appeal.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the Tribunal's findings required correction based on the evidence presented and the applicable compensatory principles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized appropriate assessment of notional income and consideration for various compensation heads to reflect just compensation for injuries sustained.
Result: Appeal allowed enhancing total compensation to ₹6,71,055/-.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. incident details leading to injury claim. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondents' position and tribunal's findings. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. compensation claims specifics reviewed. (Para 6) |
| 4. recommendations on compensation adjustments. (Para 7) |
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.531/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 31/10/2019. 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 19/01/2016 at about 02:45 p.m., while he was riding motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-34/C 3992 through Ranni-Erumeli road, motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-5/S 4728 ridden by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit his motorcycle and he fell down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries.
3. The first respondent/rider and the second respondent/owner remained ex parte.
4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy of the offending vehicle. It was also contended that the amount claimed was excessive.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents. Ext.X1 disability certificate is also marked.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent/rider of the offending motorcycle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹4,75,950/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of 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 51 year old sound operator was earning ₹12,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹7,000/-, which is quite low even going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Co.
Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236
9.1. In the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra) the notional income of the claim petitioner is fixed at ₹10,500/- per month.
Bystander's expenses
10. An amount of ₹30,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal granted an amount of ₹5,000/-. The accident took place on 19/01/2016. Therefore, granting compensation at a rate of ₹450/-
per day for a period of 20 days would be just and reasonable, that is, ₹450/- x 20 days = ₹9,000/-.
Pain and suffering
11. The materials on record show that the claim petitioner sustained the following injuries:- “(1) pneumocephalus, (2) left temporal EDH, (3) left squamous temporal bone fracture, (4) left orbit lateral wall fracture, (5) left clavicle fracture, (6) left 4th to 9th rib fracture, and (7)
left hemothorax. ”
The Tribunal referring to the materials on record had noticed that after the incident, the claim petitioner was swaying while walking ; had slurring of speech ; weakness of right upper and lower limbs with associated difficulties and inconveniences. The materials on record show that he had fracture of 6 ribs. In the facts and circumstances of the case, an additional amount of ₹50,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable.
Loss of amenities and conveniences
12. In the light of the nature of injuries sustained, I find that an amount of 50,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable
