Kerala High Court
Abdul Azees vs Subi C.S on 6 August, 2025
1
MACA No.126 of 2021 2025:KER:58670
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 126 OF 2021
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 05.11.2020 IN O.P.(MV) NO.431 OF 2018
OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA
-------------
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ABDUL AZEES, AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.HASSAINAR, ELATTUPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE,
VADATTUPARA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL
SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL
SHRI.ASWIN KUMAR M J
SMT.HELEN P.A.
SHRI.ARUN ROY
SRI.SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI
SHRI.MUHAMMED SUHAIR C.A
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SUBI C.S., AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O.SOMAN.C.P., CHUNDAPURAKKAL HOUSE, PONNURE P.O.,
IDAKKALATHUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680 552.
2 DAVIS K.J., AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O.JOHN, KOLLANNOOR HOUSE, 8/237,
KAIVALLIAM, ANUGRAHA ROAD, PERAMANGALAM P.O.,
THRISSUR-680 545.
3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
PARK HOUSE ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR-680 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
2
MACA No.126 of 2021 2025:KER:58670
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., PARK HOUSE ROUND
NORTH, THRISSUR-680 001.
BY ADV.SHRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
MACA No.126 of 2021 2025:KER:58670
JUDGMENT
The appellant was the claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Muvattupuzha. He met with an accident on 23.04.2018. The accident was caused by the motorcycle driven by the 1st respondent, owned by the 2nd respondent, and insured with the 3rd respondent herein. At the time of the accident, the appellant was 39 years old. The MACT, by its award dated 05.11.2020, has fixed the salary of the appellant notionally at Rs.10,000/- and also arrived at the disability at 8% for awarding the amounts as seen from the impugned award.
2. Heard Sri.Sooraj T. Elenjickal, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Thomas Mathew Nellimootil, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent Insurance Company. There is no appearance for respondents 1 and 2, in spite of the service of notice.
4
MACA No.126 of 2021 2025:KER:58670
3. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the MACT erred in notionally fixing the monthly income at Rs.10,000/-, when the appellant had relied upon Exts.A10 to A12 documents, in support of the contention that the salary was Rs.20,000/-. It is true that the appellant had relied upon Ext.A10 to A12 documents in support of his contentions that the monthly salary was to the extent of Rs.20,000/-. But the appellant had not proved the afore documents by adducing evidence. When that be so, the findings contained in paragraph 11 of the impugned award to the extent of fixation of salary at Rs.10,000/-, cannot be faulted. However, going by the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236], notional income ought to have been fixed at Rs.11,500/-. At the time of the accident, the claimant was 39 years old; hence, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is correct.
5
MACA No.126 of 2021 2025:KER:58670
4. The second issue arising for consideration is with reference to the claim for compensation on account of the continued disability. The appellant had relied upon Ext.C1, which admittedly shows the disability at 14%. This Court notices that the disability was the one that was noticed in paragraph 10 of the impugned award. Noticing the afore disability, the MACT has found that the disability requires to be quantified at 8% alone.
5. However, the learned counsel for the appellant sought to rely on the judgment of this Court in Thresiamma Sebastian v. Renu Swamidas and Ors. [2024 (5) KLT 198], in support of the contention that once the Medical Board has certified the disability at 14%, the Tribunal ought to have accepted the same. This Court notices the afore judgment, wherein it has been categorically found that it is for the Insurance Company to summon the doctors, if it has a case that the certification by the Medical Board is not to be accepted. In the case at hand, such a course of action has 6 MACA No.126 of 2021 2025:KER:58670 not been adopted by the respondent herein. Hence, I am of the opinion that the certificate at Ext.C1, as per which the disability has been certified at 14% is to be acted upon. The appellant is entitled for the afore benefit also.
6. In such circumstances, the appellant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.2,89,800/- (11,500x15x12x14%). The compensation eligibility of the appellant would be as under;
Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in Total
Compensation for claimed awarded Appeal compensation
(In Rs.) (In Rs.)
Loss of earnings 120000 20000 - 20000
Partial loss of earnings 30000 0 - 0
Transport to hospital 15000 3000 - 3000
Damage to clothings 5000 2000 - 2000
Extra nourishment 12000 10000 - 10000
Medical expenses 90000 71567 - 71567
Future medical 40000 25000 - 25000
expenses
Bystander expenses 20000 3500 - 3500
Pain and suffering 100000 40000 - 40000
mental shock and
agony
Loss of amenities and 100000 20000 - 20000
discomfort
Disfigurement and 25000 0 - 0
deformities
Loss of earning power 100000 0 - 0
Continuing disabilities 200000 144000 289800/- 289800
Total 500000 339067 289800 484867
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award 7 MACA No.126 of 2021 2025:KER:58670 is modified, entitling the claimants to get a total compensation of Rs.1,45,800/- after deducting the amount already awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 7% per annum from the date of the petition till realization and proportionate costs.
Resultantly, the captioned appeal would stand disposed of.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE ln