IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 2152 OF 2014 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 15.02.2014 IN OPMV NO.213 OF 2013 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KALPETTA APPELLANT:

ALI AGED 38 YEARS S/O.YOOSAF, ARANGANATHU HOUSE, MANALVAYAL, IRULAM P O,PULPALLY, WAYANAD DIST BY ADV SMT.CELINE JOSEPH RESPONDENT:

THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COM LTD, BRANCH OFFICE, NOORANAL BUILDING,MYSORE ROAD, SULTHAN BATHERY , WAYANAD DIST BY ADV SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP-SC THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 11^th day of March, 2025 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.213/ 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, 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 17.02.2013. According to the petitioner, on 17.02.2013 at about 11.00 a.m., while he was travelling in an autorickshaw, driven by the 1^st respondent, he lost control over the vehicle and it capsized. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries.

3. The 1^st respondent is the driver, the 2^nd 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.5,62,000/-(limited to Rs.3,00,000/-).

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 A12, 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.1,20,447/- 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. Celine Joseph, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri. Jayapradeep V., the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid 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 Beautician, earning Rs.10,000/- per month, but the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.5000/-. The learned counsel for the insurer would argue that the income fixed by the tribunal is reasonable.

11. It is true that the petitioner could not prove his income, as claimed in the OP. However from Exts. A7 Membership card issued by Kerala State Beautician Association and A8 , registration certificate issued by Office of the Assistant Labour Officer, Sulathanbathery .it is proved that the petitioner was a Beautician by profession. 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 2013 will come to Rs.9000/-. Therefore, the petitioner being a Beautician by profession, his notional income is fixed at Rs. 10,000/-, for the purpose of computing the loss of disability.

12. In the accident the petitione