Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 49442
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
, J
SAJIMON – Appellant
Versus
M.I.THOMAS – Respondent
O.P (MV) No.52 of 2005
For the Appellants/Petitioners: [Appellant's Counsel]
For the Respondents:[Standing Counsel for Respondent Insurer]
The court re-assessed and enhanced the compensation awarded for injuries based on established principles of motor accident claims, ensuring just and reasonable compensation.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicle Act - Compensation for injuries sustained in motor accident - Claimant awarded ₹2,46,381/- as compensation post appeal - Court modified various heads of compensation including loss of earnings, permanent disability, and loss of amenities - Effective monthly income fixed at ₹4,500/- following established jurisprudence. (Paras 5-7)
(B) Assessment of compensation - Principles established regarding pain and suffering and loss of amenities - Compensation for permanent disability adjusted based on age and trends in previous judgments. (Paras 6-7)
Facts of the case:
The claimant sustained injuries from a collision with a vehicle driven by the respondent and sought ₹2,00,000/- in compensation, which the tribunal initially assessed at ₹90,201/-.
Findings of Court:
Total compensation revised to ₹2,46,381/- with detailed calculations provided for each head of claim.
Issues: The primary issues were the determination of just compensation amount under various heads following the tribunal’s assessments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed established principles in determining compensation, emphasizing just and reasonable estimates based on evidence presented.
Result: Appeal allowed in part, enhancing compensation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. describes the incident and initial compensation claim. (Para 1) |
| 2. details of accident and initial compensation claim. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. arguments presented for enhancement of compensation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. final decision with enhanced compensation awarded. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.52 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.
2. According to the appellant, on 27.06.2004, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-02/M-8572 with a pillion rider from west to east direction along the Muhamma - Kanjikuzhy road, a Hyundai Santro Car bearing Reg.No.KL-04/M-1515 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the appellant’s motorcycle and thus he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming compensation ₹
2,00,000/-.
3. The first respondent, driver cum owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex-parte before the tribunal. The 2nd respondent, insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and denied liability. PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A20 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, ₹
awarded a sum of 90,201/- as compensation under different heads with interest @7% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs from respondent - insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads :-
Notional income :- The learned counsel for the ₹
appellant submitted that though an amount of 6,000/- was claimed as the income of the injured, who was a fisherman, the tribunal has taken only an amount of ₹
3,000/- as the monthly income. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], the income of a Coolie, for an accident that occurred in the year 2004 is ₹
fixed as 4,500/-. Considering the afore facts, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at ₹
4,500/-.
Loss of earnings :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings, the tribunal had taken a period of six months. Since the monthly notional income has been ₹
re-fixed as 4,500/-, the compensation payable under the ₹
head is re-calculated thus: 27,000/-(4500×6). The tribunal ₹
has awarded an amount of 18,000/- under the afore head.
₹
Thus, there will be an additional amount of 9,000/- under the said head.
Damage to clothing :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no compensation was paid towards the afore head. Considering the fact that the ₹
accident occured in 2004, I grant an amount of 300/-
under the said head.
Loss of amenities :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that towards the head loss of amenities no amount was awarded by the tribunal. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, I find that an amount of ₹
50,000/- can be granted under the said head.
Compensation for permanent disability :- The appellant was aged 30 years at the time of the accident. Following the judgments in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)] , the compensation payable under the head is re-calculated as ₹
thus: 1,46,880/- (4500×12×17×16/100). The tribunal has ₹
awarded an amount of 50,000/- under the head permanent disability. Thus, there will be an additional ₹
amount of 96,880/- under the afore head.
6. Though the appellant claimed enhancement of compensation under the other heads, on a pe
