Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 10088
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MRS. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J
BALAN, S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 51 YEARS – Appellant
Versus
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C. – Respondent
M.A.C.A. NO. 622 OF 2017 | OP(MV) NO.459 OF 2011
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.R.MOHANA BABU, SRI.M.AJITH
For the Respondents: SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SRI.ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A., ADV.SMT.M.HEMALATHA
The Court emphasized the need for just compensation in claims, considering notional income and permanent disability assessment.
Headnote:The present judgment concerns an appeal regarding the compensation awarded in a motor accident claim. The Court found merit in the Appellants' claims for increased compensation citing statutes and previous case laws. The Appellants' claim for enhancing the quantum of compensation was partly allowed, with a clear increase in the awarded sums under various heads. The Court determined the final compensatory amount to be ₹10,23,200/- with 7% interest per annum.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the case and initial assessments of the tribunal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments for increasing compensation based on income and disability. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's findings on compensation adjustments based on legal precedents. (Para 6) |
| 4. final decision and order regarding compensation awarded. (Para 7) |
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P(MV) No. 459 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal. In the year 2021, during the pendency of this appeal, the claimant died and his legal heirs viz., wife, elder daughter and two sons, were impleaded as additional appellants 2 to 5.
2. The case of the deceased claimant was that, on
28.10.2010, at about 10.30 p.m., the claimant was riding a bicycle through NH 47 Neendakara road from south to north direction. While so, the 2nd respondent had driven a KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KL 15/5615 (RT 437) from the same direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the bicycle of the claimant. As a result, the claimant was thrown to the road due to which he sustained grievous injuries. The claimant approached the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹14,00,000/-.
3. The first, second and third respondents were the owner, driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle respectively. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent remained ex-parte. The first and third respondents filed a written statement admitting the validity of the insurance coverage but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A12 and Ext.C1 were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹2,24,300/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum against the 3rd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant had come up in appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent KSRTC and the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent insurance company.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants claims enhancement mainly under the following heads :-
Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though an amount of ₹4,500/- was claimed, the tribunal took only an amount of ₹3,000/- as the monthly income of the claimant who was a worker at the Neendakara port. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that, as per the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ], the income of a coolie for an accident in the year 2010 is fixed at ₹7,500/- per month and sought for enhancement of fixation of monthly income. Following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra) in order to award just compensation, I find it appropriate to refix the monthly income as ₹7,500/-.
Compensation for pain and sufferings :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹1,00,000/- was claimed, the Tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹50,000/- under the head pain and sufferings. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased claimant, I find that a total amount of ₹1,00,000/- can be awarded under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹50,000/- under the afore head.
Loss of earnings:- The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has granted an amount of ₹36,000/- for a period of twelve months under the said head. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased claimant and since the monthly income is refixed at ₹7,500/-, the total compensation payable under the head is recalculated for a period of twelve months as thus: ₹90,000/- (7500 x 12). The Tribunal has already awarded an amount of ₹36,000/- under t
