Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 47076
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J
BEEFATHIMA.H.M – Appellant
Versus
MOHAMMED.K.A – Respondent
MACA NO. 178 OF 2019 | OP(MV) NO.533 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SRINATH GIRISH, SRI.P.JERIL BABU
For the Respondents: SRI.T.MADHU, SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI
Compensation awarded must reflect actual losses suffered by the injured, allowing for reasonable adjustments beyond initial claims.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident - Claim for compensation for loss of income and treatment costs considered - Calculation of loss of earnings based on monthly income fixed at Rs.11,000/- after evaluating professional claims and injury impacts - Additional compensation awarded for extra nourishment and pain and suffering. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
(B) The court established the principle that compensation must be just and reasonable, cannot be constrained to the initial claim, and noted the need for adequate compensation reflecting actual losses sustained by the injured party. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a tailor, suffered injuries from an accident caused by the negligent driving of the first respondent, resulting in a claim for Rs.9,000/- monthly income which was contested leading to an enhanced compensation award.
Findings of Court:
The court enhanced the awarded amount to a total compensation of Rs.41,000/- with interest @9% per annum, confirming the tribunal's other findings.
Issues: The main issues were the appellant's claimed income versus what was awarded, and the denial of further compensation for future treatments based on insufficient evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that notional income can be considered despite the original claim limitations, ensuring compensation reflects the claimants’ actual loss and suffering.
Result: The appeal is allowed and the appellant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.41,000/- (Rupees Forty-One Thousand only).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident caused by negligence established. (Para 1) |
| 2. claim for loss of income and resulting expenses evaluated. (Para 2) |
| 3. arguments on compensation adequacy and justification for awards. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. no evidence for future treatment claims. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 7th day of August 2025 The appellant is the petitioner in O.P(MV)No.533 of
2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod. She claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the injuries suffered in a motor accident on 13.07.2017. On the said day, at about 5.15 p.m., while the Appellant was travelling in an autorikshaw it collided with a car at Periya. The car came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the autorikshaw and thereby, the Appellant sustained injuries. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 remained ex-parte. Ext.A1 is the FIR and Ext.A2 is the final report. As per Ext.A2 report, the 1st respondent was driving the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-13AG5479 in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the negligent driving of the 1st respondent. Thereafter, the Tribunal calculated the compensation for the injuries sustained and awarded a sum of Rs.1,42,250/- with interest @9% from the date of petition till realisation. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, this appeal is filed.
2. The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that that the Appellant was a tailor by profession and was earning an income of Rs.9,000/- p.m. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, she was unable to work for six months and claimed compensation towards loss of income for that period. In the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal took Rs.6,000/- p.m. as the monthly income. The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236] , and submits that the notional monthly income of a coolie who met with an accident in the year 2017 is taken as Rs.11,000/-. Therefore, the Appellant, being a tailor, is entitled to a monthly income higher than that of a coolie.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer and submits that though the claim was only Rs.9,000/-, the appellant is not entitled to claim more than what was sought in the petition and the benefit of the judgment of the Apex Court is not to enure the benefit of the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income as Rs.6,000/- p.m. The Apex Court, in a catena of decisions, has held that even if the claim is less, the compensation to be awarded must be just and reasonable and not based on technicalities. The Apex Court has fixed the notional income of a coolie in the year 2017 as Rs.11,000/- and therefore, in the absence of any evidence, the same yardstick can be applied to the appellant. Therefore, I fix the monthly income as Rs.11,000/-. Though the appellant claims that there was loss of income for six months, the Tribunal has awarded loss of earnings for three months. Exts.A7 & A8 wound certificates show that the appellant sustained a fracture of the maxilla, fracture of the zygomatic arch, cerebral concussion and a lacerated wound on the right parietal area of the scalp and that she was hospitalized for five days. A person, especially a lady, who has suffered injuries to both the head and face, would have to remain at home at least for four months. Therefore, the loss of earnings is taken for four months @Rs.11,000/- which will come to Rs.11,000 x 4 = Rs.44,000/-. It is also argued that though she was treated as an inpatient for five days, she continued her treatment at home for quite a long time and therefore, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was claimed towards extra nourishment, but the Tribunal did not award anything under this head. A person who has suffered injuries in an accident and has undergone tre
