IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN MONDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947 MACA NO. 1137 OF 2014 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.02.2013 IN OPMV NO.411 OF 2012 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOZHIKODE APPELLANT:

PAVITHRAN AGED 54 YEARS S/O.KUMARAN, RESIDING AT PONNAMPARAMBATH HOUSE, P.O.KARAPARAMBU, NEAR HOMEO COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE BY ADVS.

SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN RESPONDENTS:

1 M.SHAJAHAN S/O.CHERIYAMOIDEEN, RESIDING AT 1/2086, THARAMMEL HOUSE, THOPPAYIL, P.O.NADUKKAVU, KOZHIKODE - 673

006.

2 UNNIKRISHNAN AGED 29 YEARS S/O.SUKUMARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT VALIYAPARAMBU HOUSE, POTTAMMEL P.O., NELLIKODE, KOZHIKODE - 673

002.

3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE, 1, 2ND FLOOR, FAIR MOUNT BUILDING, ERANHIPALAM, WYNAD ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 010.

BY ADV N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN OTHER PRESENT:

SRI. N.S. MOHAMED USMAN FOR R3.

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.07.2024, THE COURT ON 07.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

V.G.ARUN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

MACA No.1137 of 2014 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dated this the 7^th day of April, 2025

JUDGMENT

The appellant sustained the following injuries in a road traffic accident on 27.07.2011;

“Sub conjuctival haemorrhage (Rt),Fracture of anterior and posterior lateral walls of right max.sinus, medial wall of right maxi.sinus and medial wall of left maxi.sinus”

2. According to the appellant, at the time of the accident he was aged 54 years and was working as a fitter in a workshop in Nadakavu cross road, earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The appellant therefore claimed compensation of Rs.1,16,000/-. By the impugned award, the Tribunal granted total compensation of Rs.27,064/- with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. Aggrieved, this appeal is filed.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in taking the notional income of the appellant as Rs.3,500/- per month. It is contended that, even if no documents were produced to prove monthly income, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the notional income by taking guidance from the Apex Court decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236]. The Tribunal also committed illegality by denying compensation for the loss sustained by the appellant due to his permanent disability, in spite of him being certified to be suffering from 20% disability.

4. Learned Counsel for the insurance company contended that Ext.A4 disability certificate is issued by a Doctor who had not treated the appellant and the certificate was not proved by examining the Doctor. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in refusing to accept and act upon that document. According to the Counsel, just and proper compensation has been granted by the Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned award warrants no interference.

5. As far as the challenge against fixation of notional income is concerned, it is to be noted that the appellant had not produced any document to prove that his monthly income was Rs.4,500/-. In such circumstances, the option available to the Tribunal was to assess the notional income, by taking guidance from the decision of the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa (supra), and in which event, the notional income would be Rs.8,000/- per month. Be that as it may, since the appellant had claimed only Rs.4500/- as income, the said amount could have been fixed as his notional income.

6. There is also merit in the challenge against reduction of the percentage of disability, since Ext.A4 certificate was issued by the doctor after examining the appellant and perusing his treatment records. In Dileep Antony v. Shobin Sebastian and Others [2022 (6) KHC 105], a learned Single Judge of this Court referred to G.O(P) No.161/97/H&FWD dated 15.05.1997 containing the revised orders/guidelines for issuing disability certificates for production before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Workmen's Compen