1. The captioned appeals are preferred against the award dated 24.03.2023 passed by the MACT, Kollam. MACA No. 3525 of 2023 is preferred by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant, whereas MACA No. 322 of 2024 is preferred by the claimants on the ground of inadequacy of the compensation.

2. The brief facts involved in the case are as follows: On 18.10.2018 at around 11:30 p.m., while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL 02 AP 5954 from north to south along the Kollam Taluk Junction-Chamakkada road, and had reached Kalluppalam, a car bearing registration No. KL-02 AC 4567, driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle. Resultantly, the claimant sustained injuries. He was initially taken to the District Hospital, Kollam, and from there shifted to Travancore Medical College Hospital, Kollam, where he underwent treatment. He claimed a total compensation of Rs.75,00,000/-.

3. The 1st respondent is the owner-cum-driver of the car, and the 2nd respondent is its insurer. The 1st respondent, in his written statement, denied the allegations in the claim petition and contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant himself. He further stated that the vehicle had a valid insurance policy at the time of the accident. The 2nd respondent also filed a written statement disputing the age and income of the claimant. He further contended that the claimant sustained only minor injuries, denied any permanent disability, and claimed that the compensation sought was exorbitant. Additionally, he alleged collusion between the claimant and the 1st respondent.

4. The Tribunal framed issues for adjudication regarding whether there was any negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, who is liable to pay the compensation, and the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal marked Exhibits A1 to A14 and X1.

5. On evaluating Exts. A1 (FIR) and A4 (FIS), Exts. A6 (Scene Mahazar) and A3 (AMVI Report), and relying on the final report wherein the driver was charge-sheeted under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the IPC and Sections 134(a) & (b) of the MV Act, the Tribunal concluded that the 1st respondent was negligent. It further held that since there was a valid insurance policy, which was admitted, the 2nd respondent is liable to indemnify the 1st respondent and pay the compensation to the claimant.

6. The Tribunal considered the quantum of compensation by taking into account the age of the claimant and his claim that he was earning a monthly income of Rs.35,000/-. On evaluating the nature of the injuries, the duration of hospitalisation, the passbook issued by the Fishermen Welfare Fund Board, the photographs of the claimant, the medical bills, the discharge summary, and the disability certificate (Ext.X1), it is evident that the claimant has suffered a 90% permanent disability which is progressive in nature. Based on these, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the claimant at Rs.12,000/- per month.

7. However, this fixation is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the appellant in MACA No. 322 of 2024 on the ground that the claimant, being a fisherman as well as a boat mechanic, is a skilled labourer and is thus entitled to higher wages than the amount fixed by the Tribunal. In support of this contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on two Government Orders (GOs) issued by the Labour and Rehabilitation Department, namely GO(MS) No. 113/2011/LBR dated 09.08.2011 and GO(P) No. 10/2022/LBR dated 22.02.2022, wherein the minimum daily wages for men engaged in fishing were fixed at Rs. 225/- and Rs. 600/-respectively.

8. Relying on the reported decisions in Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. v. Mujeeb Rahman A.P. [2025 (1) KHC 606] and Master Jyothisraj Krishna @Jyothi Krishna v. Sunny George [2025 (1) KHC 348], the learned counsel contended that the notional income should be fixed based on the minimum wages prescribed for skilled workers as per the relevant State Notifications. Specific reference was also made to GO(P) No. 56/2017/Fin. dated 28.04.2017, issued by the Finance Department, wherein the minimum wage for skilled workers was fixed at Rs. 17,325/- per month with effect from 01.04.2017.

9. On considering these submissions, and with respectful disagreement with my learned brother, it is observed that GO(P) No. 56/2017/Fin. was issued by the Finance Department specifically for engaging daily-rated or contract employees under various government departments. A traditional fisherman cannot be equated with the category of persons contemplated under the said Finance Department order. Furthermore, it appears that no specific notification has been issued by the Labour Department—which is the authorized statutory department under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948—explicitly fixing the minimum wages for traditional fishermen.

10. A scrutiny of the Labour Department orders dated 09.08.2011 and 22.02.2022 reveals that there is no precise periodic quantification of minimum wages for workers engaged in fishing, including vessel or boat drivers. Under the 2011 GO, a minimum guaranteed amount was fixed at Rs.225/- per day, whereas Rs.600/- per day was fixed as the minimum wage only in the year 2022 (a gap of more than ten years).

11. Since there is a span of over a decade between these two notifications, the daily wage fixed under the 2011 GO needs to be adjusted incrementally to arrive at a fair figure for the year of the accident. By distributing the total wage increase over the ten-year intervening period, the average annual increment comes to Rs. 40/-per year [(600 - 200)/10].

12. The accident occurred in the year 2018, which is seven years after the 2011 GO. Therefore, the calculated daily wage increase for 2018 would be Rs.480/- [(40 x 7) +200]. Then the monthly income would come to Rs.12,480/- (480 x 26). Given that the claimant is a technically qualified, skilled person (a boat mechanic), it is appropriate to round this figure up to Rs.15,000/-per month. Notably, this specific fishing sector GO is silent regarding the Variable Dearness Allowance (VDA) that is typically granted in other minimum wage notifications.

13. The other contention, raised by the appellant/insurer in MACA No. 3525 of 2023, pertains to the choice of the multiplier. The insurer argues that since the claimant had completed 40 years and 5 months at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier should be 14, relying on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corpn. [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. In the absence of any reliable contrary evidence regarding the exact age at which the threshold is crossed, this contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in MACA No. 3525 of 2023 cannot be sustained. Moreover, at the time of the accident, the claimant had not yet crossed 41 years of age. So, the Tribunal adopted the correct multiplier of 15.

14. Furthermore, it is contended by the appellant/insurer in MACA No. 3525 of 2023 that since the claimant was 40 years and 5 months at the time of the accident, the addition for future prospects should be restricted to 25% instead of the 40% granted by the Tribunal. An addition of 40% is permissible only when the victim is below the age of 40 years. Consequently, the Tribunal erred in granting 40% towards future prospects, as the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra) and subsequently clarified in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (5) KHC 350] explicitly ruled that for a self-employed or fixed-wage individual aged between 40 and 50 years, the future prospects must be capped at 25%.

15. Turning to the physical condition of the victim, it is observed that the 1st appellant in MACA No. 322 of 2024 is completely bedridden. This necessitated the 2nd appellant to actively contest and prosecute this case on his behalf. This state of health clearly demonstrates that the appellant is entirely incapacitated and unable to undertake his customary work or manage his day-to-day activities. Although the Medical Board has assessed his permanent physical disability at 90%, taking into account the pathetic situation to which the 1st appellant has been reduced, and bearing in mind that the Motor Vehicles Act is a piece of beneficial social legislation, I deem it appropriate to add 10% towards his functional disability. Accordingly, the functional disability is treated as 100%. Though this enhancement was vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the insurer in MACA No. 3525 of 2023, the total loss of earning capacity must be computed at 100%. Therefore, the compensation under the head of permanent disability is recalculated as:

                  (Rs.15,000 + 25% of Rs.15,000) x 12 x 15 = Rs.33,75,000/-)

16. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurer in MACA No. 3525 of 2023 further contended that the amount awarded towards bystander expenses is exorbitant because the Tribunal incorrectly applied a multiplier of 15. This contention was countered by the learned counsel for the claimants in MACA No. 322 of 2024, who placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Master Jyothis Raj Krishna supra. In that case, this Court, after evaluating the settled legal position established by the Apex Court in various decisions—most notably in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Others [(2020) 4 SCC 413]—held that the multiplier system must be applied while calculating attendance charges or bystander expenses in claims arising under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In paragraph 22 of Kajal (supra), the Apex Court observed:

                  "The attendant charges have been awarded by the High Court @ Rs. 2,500/- per month for 44 years which works out to Rs. 13,20,000/-. Unfortunately, this system is not a proper system. The multiplier system is used to balance out various factors. When compensation is awarded in a lump sum, various factors are taken into consideration. When compensation is paid in a lump sum, this Court has always followed the multiplier system. The multiplier system should be followed not only for determining the compensation on account of loss of income but also for determining the attendant charges, etc. This system was recognized by this Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami [AIR 1962 SC 1]. The multiplier system factors in the inflation rate, the rate of interest payable on the lump sum award, the longevity of the claimant, and also other issues such as the uncertainties of life. Out of all the various alternative methods, the multiplier method has been recognized as the most realistic and reasonable method. It ensures better justice between the parties and thus results in the award of 'just compensation' within the meaning of the Act."

17. Under these circumstances, bystander expenses must be worked out by applying the appropriate multiplier to the benchmark rate fixed for attendants. As per GO(P) No. 202/2016/Labour dated 29.12.2016, the monthly wage for caregivers looking after the elderly, patients, and the differently-abled was fixed at Rs.5,226/- per month. Along with a 5% Dearness Allowance (DA), this amount comes to Rs.5,487/-. Since this Government Order dates back to 2016 and the accident occurred later in the year 2018, it is fair to round this figure to Rs.5,500/- per month for the purpose of this calculation.

18. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the claimants that since the appellant is 40 years of age and completely bedridden, his condition necessitates the assistance of at least two attendants. Relying on the decision rendered by this Court in Master Jyothis Raj Krishna (supra), the counsel submitted that the claimant is entitled to compensation for two attendants.

19. Conversely, this claim was vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the insurer in MACA No. 3525 of 2023, who argued that the Tribunal applied an incorrect multiplier of 15 to grant an excessive and baseless sum of Rs.9,00,000/- under the head of 'bystander expenses.' The insurer further contended that no cogent evidence was adduced before the Tribunal to prove that the claimant was entirely bedridden or incapacitated.

20. Dealing with the standard of proof required in such matters, the Apex Court in Bimla Devi and Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corpn. and Others [(2009) 13 SCC 530] held that claimants in motor accident cases are only required to establish their case on the touchstone of a preponderance of probabilities, and the strict standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt cannot be applied.

21. In the case at hand, a review of the cause title itself reveals that the wife of the claimant had to approach the Tribunal to prosecute the case on behalf of her husband. This circumstance, coupled with the medical evidence on record, sufficiently establishes that the claimant is completely bedridden, and no further strict ocular proof is required to draw this inference. Consequently, taking note of the pathetic physical condition of the claimant, I have no hesitation in holding that he requires the assistance of at least two bystanders, and the compensation must be worked out accordingly. Hence, the bystander expenses can be recalculated as Rs.5,500 x 2 x 12 x 15 = Rs.19,80,000/-.

22. However, the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer in MACA No. 3525 of 2023 contended that since the functional disability of the claimant has been assessed at 100% and compensation is being granted for the total loss of earning capacity, the separate amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of earnings cannot be sustained. As this submission was not opposed by the learned counsel for the claimants in MACA No. 322 of 2024, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘loss of earnings’ is hereby set aside to avoid duplication.

23. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants in MACA No. 322 of 2024 contended that the Tribunal failed to award any compensation under the head of future medical treatment. To substantiate this claim, the appellants produced additional medical bills covering the years 2020 to 2024, totalling Rs.15,000/-. Given the progressive nature of the claimant's 90% physical disability and his completely bedridden state, it can be reasonably presumed that he will require lifelong medical care. Therefore, I deem it just and proper to award a lump sum amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards future medical treatment. The claimants are also entitled to receive a sum of ₹15,000/- towards medical expenses, as evidenced by the additional medical bills produced before this Court.

24. Consequent to the aforementioned observations and findings, both appeals are partially allowed, and the award dated 24.03.2023 passed by the MACT, Kollam, is modified accordingly as tabulated hereunder:

                 

                

                  In the result, the appeals are disposed of, enhancing the compensation by a further amount of ₹19,40,400/- (65,31,343 - 45,90,943) (Rupees Nineteen lakhs forty thousand four hundred only) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs. It is clarified that out of the total compensation, Rs.19,80,000/- granted towards future bystander expenses and Rs.3,00,000/- awarded towards future treatment will carry interest from the date of award and not from the date of petition. The respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. On deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the same to the claim petitioner at the earliest in accordance with law after making deductions, if any.