IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946 MACA NO. 2760 OF 2014 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 10.08.2011 IN OPMV NO.596 OF 2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER :-

BIJU JOSEPH, S/O JOSEPH, KOLLASSERY HOUSE, MOSCO BHAGOM, MADAPPALLY VILLAGE.

BY ADVS.

SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :-

1 V.K.MANI, MUNDACKAL HOUSE, KARUNAPURAM P.O., RAMAKALMEDU, IDUKKI-685 552.

2 TOMY THOMAS, KALLOOPARAMBIL, UMBIDI P.O., THOTTACKADU, KOTTAYAM-686539.

3 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. KOTTAYAM-

686001.

BY ADV SRI.A.R.GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.596/2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, is the appellant. The 3^rd respondent in the O.P. is the respondent herein. 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 06.10.2007.

2. According to the petitioner, on 06.10.2007 at about 09.30 pm, while he was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-33/6296 along Changanassery – Vzhoor road from west to east direction, a bus bearing Registration No.KL-5/P 7754 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit him down. As a result of which, he sustained serious injuries.

3. The 2^nd respondent is the owner and the 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the bus. The 1^st and 2^nd respondent remained ex parte. The 3^rd respondent alone contested before the Tribunal by filing a written statement and contending that the accident occurred not due to the negligence of the 1^st respondent.

4. The evidence in the case consists of documentary evidence of Exts.A1 to A14 and Ext.X1. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

5. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,00,005/-.

6. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this appeal.

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

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

8. Heard Sri.Philip T Varghese, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri.A.R.George, the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company.

9. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notional income of the petitioner fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.3,500/- is too meager. According to the petitioner, even as per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the notional income of a coolie during the year 2007 will come to Rs.6,000/-. According to him, the petitioner was conducting a bakery, and as such, his monthly income is to be fixed at a sum above that of a coolie.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent would argue that the income of the petitioner claimed in the claim petition is only Rs.5,000/- and hence his notional income cannot be fixed over and above Rs.5,000/-.

11. It is true that in the claim petition, the petitioner has claimed his monthly at Rs.5,000/-. He also claimed that he was running a bakery. However, he has not adduced any evidence to prove his income as claimed in the Original Petition. However, he has produced Ext.A9 professional tax receipt dated 23.11.2007 and Ext.A13 certificate issued by the Secretary of the Local Grama Panchayat in order to substantiate his argument that the petitioner was conducting a bakery business. In Ext.A9, it is stated that he was conducting a bakery. In Ext.A13, the Secretary certified that during the relevant period he has not remitted the licence fee for renewing the licen