IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH 2025/29TH PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 3740 OF 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.06.2016 IN OPMV NO.1560 OF 2010 OF SPECIAL C SPE/CBI-I&3 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT / I ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

APPELLANT:

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, BRANCH OFFICE, KOCHI REP. BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM BY ADV SEBASTIAN VARGHESE RESPONDENTS:

1 ANIL K.GEORGE, S/O LATE GEORGE, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT 31/13, KOCHPURACKAL VEETTIL, AMBEL;IPADOM, CROSS ROAD, VYTTILA P.O., PIN - 682 019.

2 SHAJI MATHEW, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, KUMBALANGI P.O., KOCHI - 682 007.

3 RAMESH, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O PRATHAPAN, ARAKKAPADOM VEETTIL, KUMBALAGI P.O., WESTERN SIDE OF ILLIKKEL TEMPLE, KUMBALANGI - 682 007.

4 UNITE DINDIA INSUANCE COMPANY LTD BRANCH OFFICE, KALOOR- 682 017 BY ADVS.

SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.E.G.GORDEN SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.S.K.KRISHNAKUMAR SRI.T.J.LAKSHMANAN IYER THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 20^th day of March, 2025 The Respondent No.3 in O.P.(M.V.) No.1560/2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam is the appellant herein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal).

2. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 04.07.2009. According to the petitioner, on 24.07.2009 at about 8.20 a.m, while the petitioner was riding a motorcycle, a heavy goods carriage vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-3/D-7909 came from behind in an excessive speed and hit on the back side of the motorcycle ridden by the petitioner. As a result of the accident, the petitioner fell down and sustained serious injuries.

3. The 1^st respondent is the owner and 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.6,66,000/-.

4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

5. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A13 and C1. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,72,100/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Respondent No.3 preferred this appeal.

8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

9. Heard Sri.Sebastian Varghese, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, Sri.Jacob George, the learned Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent, Sri.E.G.Gordern, the learned Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent and Sri.T.J.Lakshmanan, the learned Counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent.

10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is regarding the notional income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the petitioner was working in Indian Railway, earning Rs.18,556/- per month and the Tribunal fixed his notional monthly income also at Rs.18,556/-, which, according to him is on the higher side.

11. Admittedly, the disability suffered by the petitioner in the accident has not affected his job, career or salary. Since the injury sustained in the a