Dated this the 25th day of March, 2025 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.247 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam 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 17.05.2010. According to the petitioner, on 17.05.2010 at about 5.30 p.m., while he was riding the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.Kl-2L/96 along the High School junciton - Alumkadavu public road, a mini lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-03/N/963, driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit and knocked down the petitioner. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries.

3. The 1st respondent is the owner, the 2nd respondent is the driver and 3rd 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.15,00,000/-.

2025:KER:28554

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 oral testimonies of PWs 1 & 2 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A14, 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.14,84,023/- 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:

9. Heard Sri. K. Siju, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Smt. Deepa George, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent.

2025:KER:28554

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 businessman, earning Rs.10000/-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. 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 2010 will come to Rs.7500/-. Since the petitioner could not prove his job or income as claimed in the OP, in the light of a dictum laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa (supra) , his notional income is liable to be fixed as that of a coolie, at Rs.7500/-.

12. In the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries, as revealed from Ext.A7 wound certificate:

13. As per Exhibit C1 disability certificate the petitioner suffered 74% permanent physical disability. It was issued by the medical board. The Tribunal, has accepted the permanent physical disability of the petitioner as such and hence, I do not find any grounds to disbelieve the same. Therefore, the permanent physical disability of the petitioner is accepted as 74%, as fixed by the Tribunal.

14. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 26 years. Therefore, 40% of the monthly income is to be added towards future prospects, as held in the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] and the multiplier to be applied is 17, MACA No.2212 of 2015 6 2025:KER:28554 as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. In the above circumstances, the loss of disability will come to Rs.15,85,080/- (10500 x 12 x 17 x 74%)

15. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.60,000/- being the income for 12 months @ Rs.5000/-. Since the notional income of the petitioner is re-fixed at Rs.7500/-, towards loss of earning he is entitled to get a sum of Rs.90,000/- (7500 x 12 months).

16. Towards the head 'pain and sufferings', the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/-. Towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.9300/- was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side.

17. The petitioner sustained very serious injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient for 93 days. Because of the injuries sustained, the percentage of disability suffered and the length of treatment undergone by the petitioner, I hold that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the head 'extra nourishment' is on the lower side and hence it is enhanced to Rs.18,600/-. Towards pain and suffering, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.50,000/-. However, towards compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life a sum of Rs.3,77,400/- was awarded. Though, the compensation on the head MACA No.2212 of 2015 7 2025:KER:28554 pain and suffering is on the lower side, since, towards loss of amenities of life a sum of Rs.3,77,400/- was awarded by the tribunal, I am not enhancing the compensation awarded on the head pain and suffering.

18. The learned counsel submitted that towards loss of marriage prospects, nothing was awarded by the tribunal. Since at the time of accident the petitioner was a bachelor and in the accident he sustained very serious injuries including head injuries and had suffered 74% permanent physical disability, I hold that towards loss of marriage prospects, he is entitled to get a reasonable compensation and accordingly, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded.

19. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable.

20. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.23,85,003/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference:

On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall MACA No.2212 of 2015 9 2025:KER:28554 disburse the entire amount to the petitioner, excluding court fee payable, if any, without delay, as per rules.

C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE S.M.K.