IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS MONDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 18TH MAGHA, 1943 MACA NO. 1998 OF 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(MV) 341/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KALPETTA APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

K.V.JOHNEY, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.K.V.VARKEY, KARAKKATT HOUSE, MANANTHAVADY PO, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DIST.

BY ADV SRI.N.J.ANTONY RESPONDENTS/SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONDENTS 3 AND 2:

1 SURENDRAN, S/O.MAYAN KUTTY, EDAYANASSERY VEEDU, KANNADICKAL, POST VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DIST(DRIVER OF THE KSRTC BUS, KL-

15/1885.D.L.NO.NOT KNWON) 2 THE GENERAL MANAGER KSRTC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM(DRIVER OF THE, KSRTC BUS NO.KL-15/185)

BY ADVS.

SRI.ALEX ANTONY SC, K.S.R.T.C.

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The appellant was the petitioner in O.P(MV)

No.341/2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents 3 and 2 before the Tribunal. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

2. The petitioner had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained to him in an accident on 10.3.1999. It was his case that, on the above-said day, while he was entering a bus bearing Reg.No.KL-15/1885(bus), the supplemental 3^rd respondent moved the bus in a negligent manner. The petitioner fell down and sustained serious injuries. He was treated as an inpatient for a period of sixteen days at the District Hospital, Mananthavady. The petitioner suffered a blunt injury on his abdomen. The petitioner was a Security Guard in the District Hospital and was earning a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. The 2^nd respondent was the owner of the bus. Even though the petitioner had impleaded the 1^st respondent stating him to be the driver, subsequently, the 1^st respondent was deleted from the party array. Hence, the petitioner claimed a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-

from the respondents.

3. The respondents 1 and 3 did not contest the proceeding and were set ex parte.

4. The 2nd respondent had filed a written statement admitting the ownership of the bus. However, the 2^nd respondent disputed the age, occupation and income of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner examined himself as PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A5 in evidence. The respondents did not let in any evidence.

6. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, allowed the claim petition, in part, by permitting the petitioner to recover from the 2^nd respondent an amount of Rs.5,450/- with interest and cost.

7. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner is in appeal.

8. Heard; Sri.N.J.Antony, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and Sri.Alex Antony, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-

owner.

9. The point that arises for consideration in the appeal is whether quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just?

Negligence and liability

10. Ext.A1-F.I.R and Ext.A2-scene mahazar substantiates the fact that the that the accident happened due to the negligence of the supplemental 3^rd respondent.

As the 2^nd respondent was the owner of the bus, the

2^nd respondent is vicariously liable to pay the compensation amount on account of the accident.

Income

11. The petitioner had claimed that he was a Security Guard in the District Hospital and was earning a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. However, the Tribunal, for the want of materials, fixed the notional monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.2,100/-.

12. In Chameli Devi and others vs.Jivrail Mian and others [2019 KHC 5352], the Honourable Supreme Court has fixed the notional monthly income of a carpenter in the year 2001 at Rs.5,000/-.

13. Following the yardstick in the afore-cited decision and considering the fact that the accident oc