IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947 MACA NO. 2604 OF 2017 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 16.12.2016 IN OPMV NO.260 OF

2012 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL VADAKARA APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

BALAN NAIR AGED 58 YEARS S/O. KUNHIKELAPPAN NAMBIAR, AGED 58 YEARS,AYAPPANCHALIL HOUSE,PERAMBRA P.O, KOZHIKODE BY ADV SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.2:

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NEW INDIA ASSURANCE, 2ND FLOOR, NOOR COMPLEX, 87M.G ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI PIN 400 001 BY ADVS.

M.MEENA JOHN VIJU THOMAS THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.260/2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vatakara, 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 Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 05.01.2012. According to the petitioner, on 05.01.2012 at about 7 p.m., while he was walking along the road from Kallode to Perambra, a motorcycle bearing reg.no.KL-56-A- 2761 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down and as a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries.

3. The 1^st respondent is the driver cum owner and the 2^nd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.18,00,000/-.

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 A17 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.4,73,386/- rounded to Rs.4,73,390/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner 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.V.N. Ramesan Nambisan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Smt. M.Meena John, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd 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 petitioner is regarding the income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal. According to him, the petitioner was working as Driver, getting a daily income of Rs.750/-, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.12000/-. According to the learned counsel, the notional income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the notional income of the petitioner as fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable.

11. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the notional income of a coolie, in the year 2012 will come to Rs.8500/-. In the decision in Yoosaf N.K. Vs. Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (MACA No.289/2016), the notional income of a driver involved in an accident in the year 2012 was fixed by this Court at Rs.12000/-. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the notional inco