Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 49082
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Sudha, J
NIRMALA K.N. – Appellant
Versus
RAJEEV K.JOB – Respondent
MACA NO. 963 OF 2020 | OPMV NO.2413 OF 2010
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON, SRI.P.S.APPU, SRI.A.R.NIMOD
For the Respondents: SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR
Compensation for pain and suffering, and notional income need adjustment based on presented evidence and legal principles.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal against compensation awarded by Tribunal - Claim of ₹10,00,000/- for death in accident - Tribunal held driver negligent and awarded ₹4,74,305/- - Appeal filed to enhance compensation amount. (Para 6)
(B) Compensation for pain and suffering - Tribunal awarded ₹40,000/- after 67 days of treatment; enhanced to ₹55,000/- considering injuries in postmortem certificate. (Paras 10, 10.1)
(C) Notional income of deceased - Originally fixed at ₹5,000/-, enhanced to ₹7,500/- based on case law. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
The deceased rider was struck by a goods carrier while riding, leading to grievous injuries and death after 67 days. (Para 2)
Findings of Court:
Total enhanced compensation to ₹7,27,305/- with 8% interest from the date of petition till realization. (Final Conclusion)
Issues: Whether the Tribunal’s findings on income and compensation were subject to interference. (Para 7)
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined the notional income to be unreasonably low and thus required adjustment based on precedents. (Para 9.1)
Result: Appeal allowed by enhancing the compensation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. incident leading to claim. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. tribunal's findings on negligence and compensation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. challenges to compensation based on pain and income. (Para 9) |
| 4. final ruling on enhanced compensation. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 (the Act) by the claim petitioners in O.P.(MV) No.2413/2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 08/08/2019. The respondents herein are respondents 1 to 3 respectively 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 petitioners, on 05.05.2010 at about 10.30 a.m., while the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KL-48/A-2629 along the Koduvayoor– Pudunagaram public road and when he reached near the place by name Padikkal Padam, goods carrier lorry bearing reg.No.KL- 7/BM-8348, driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries to which he succumbed after 66 days of treatment. A sum of ₹10,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.
3. The 1st respondent/owner and 2nd respondent/ driver filed written statement denying negligence on the part of the latter.
4. The 3rd respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle but denied negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver. The age, occupation and income of the deceased were disputed. The 2nd respondent/driver did not have a valid driving license and badge at the time of the accident. It was also contended that the compensation claimed was quite excessive.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either sides. Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. No documentary evidence was produced 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 ₹4,74,305/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, claim petitioners have 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 petitioners -
Notional income
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that the notional income of the deceased, an agriculturist, fixed by the Tribunal as ₹5,000/- is quite low in the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd , (2011) 13 SCC 236 and hence the same needs to be appropriately enhanced. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/ insurer that the amount has been fixed for the deceased, a 63 year old, is quite reasonable and that no infirmity has been committed by the Tribunal. In case the court is inclined to enhanced the same, the notional income may be fixed as claimed by the claim petitioners, which is ₹6,000/-.
9.1. It is true that there are no materials produced to show the income of the deceased. However, in the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), the notional income can be fixed as ₹7,500/- per month.
Pain and Suffering
10. An amount of ₹1,00,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal awarded an amount of ₹40,000/-. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that, after the accident, the deceased had survived for a period of 67 days. The postmortem certificate shows the extent of injuries sustained
