Court upheld modification of compensation by recalculating income and disability in accident claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.

C.S.SUDHA, J.

----------------------------------------------------

M.A.C.A. No.244 of 2020 ----------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 30^th day of July 2025 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.1537/2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 14/08/2019. The respondents herein are respondents 1 to 3 respectively in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. According to the claim petitioner, on 23/10/2012 at

01:00 p.m., while he was pillion riding on motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-46/E-9663 through Mattom-Pavaratty public road and when he reached the place by name Kadavallur, autorickshaw bearing registration no.KL-46/G-4042 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. A sum of ₹

8,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.

3. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte.

4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle. The age, occupation, income, etc. of the claim petitioner were disputed. It was also contended that the compensation claimed was quite excessive.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A18 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was adduced by the third respondent/insurer.

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 3,94,110/- together with interest @ 8% 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, who was working as Manager, Ram Industries, ₹

Thrissur, was earning 18,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal ₹

fixed the notional income only at 5,500/-, which is quite low and hence the same needs to be enhanced. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the amount fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable and that in case this Court is inclined to enhance the amount, the same may be in accordance with the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236 .

9.1. The claim petitioner, in order to substantiate his allegation regarding income, has produced Ext.A17 salary certificate seen issued by the Proprietor, Ram Industries, in which the claim petitioner is stated to have been working as Manager. However, the person who issued the certificate has not been examined and therefore the Tribunal was right in not relying on Ext.A17 and fixing the monthly income. Apart from Ext.A17, there are no other materials before this Court to substantiate the allegation of the claim petitioner regarding hi