IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN TUESDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 3471 OF 2019 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 26.04.2019 IN OPMV NO.1870 OF

2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

FATHIMA BINDH AGED 43 YEARS, W/O. BASHEER, ERUMBAN O P HOUSE, OLAKKARA P.O., PERUVALLUR, MALAPPURAM.

BY ADV ANIL KUMAR K.P.

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 SIHABUDHEEN S/O. SAIDU MUHAMMED KOYA THANGAL, PARAKADAVATH HOUSE, OLAKARA, KOOMANA P.O., THIRURANGADI, MALAPPRAM - 673 638.

2 BASHEER ERUMBAN S/O. MUHAMMED KUTTY, AGED 46 YEARS, EERUMBAN O P HOUSE, OLAKKARA, PERUVALLUR P.O., MALAPPURAM - 673 638.

3 IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

CITY GALLERY, NEAR YMCA JUNCTION, KANNUR ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673 571.

BY ADV SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV)

No.1870 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 14.06.2017 at 11.30 a.m., while she was pillion riding on a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-65-D-7671 from Padikkal to Peruvallur, the rider of the motorcycle lost control and the claimant happened to fell down on the road and sustained serious injuries. The appellant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹4,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent is the registered owner, the second respondent is the rider and the third respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Before the tribunal, the first respondent remained absent and was set ex parte. The second respondent filed a written statement contending that he was holding valid driving licence at the time of accident and the vehicle was duly insured with the third respondent – insurance company. He denied the liability attributed to him in causing the accident. The respondent-insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, but disputing the liability and quantum of the compensation claimed. They disputed the age, occupation, income and injuries sustained to the appellant. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1. Exts.A1 to A15 documents were marked on the side of the appellant. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the respondents. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹3,29,200/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition, till realization, against the respondent being the 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 appearing for the insurance company.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement under the following heads:-

I.Notional income The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the appellant was a member of Peruvallur Panchayat during the time of accident in 2017, the tribunal has fixed the notional monthly income at ₹7,000/-. It is true that the appellant had claimed only an amount of ₹7,000/- as the monthly income. However, as per the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], even for a manual labourer, the income is fixed at ₹11,000/-, for an accident that took place in 2017. The appellant herein was a member of the Panchayat at the time of accident and hence I find that the income fixed by the tribunal is on the lower side. Considering the afore facts, I find it appropriate to refix the notional monthly income at ₹11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Only).

II. Loss of earning power The learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per Ext.A15 disability certificate issued by an Orthopaedic d