Kerala High Court
Jayakrishnan vs Mani.K.K on 6 August, 2025
2025:KER:58797
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 372 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 10.06.2019 IN OPMV NO.828 OF
2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:
JAYAKRISHNAN
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.ARJUNAN NAIR, CHANDRALAYAM HOUSE, THODUPUZHA
KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUZHA TALUK
BY ADV SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 MANI.K.K
S/O.KUMARAN, KOONNANANICKAL(IV/139(12/300)
EDVATTY KARA, KARIKODE VILLAGE,
THODUPUZHA TALUK, PIN-685584
2 M/S.CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANE COMPANY LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
ACEL ESTATE NO.40/586, IYYATTIL JUNCTION,
CHITTOR ROAD, KOCHI-682011
BY ADV SRI.LINTO FRANCIS
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 06.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:58797
MACA NO. 372 OF 2020
2
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.372 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of August 2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the claim petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.828/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 10/06/2019. The respondents herein are respondents 1 and 2 respectively in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.
2. According to the claim petitioner, on 07/12/2016 at about 04:30 p.m., while he was travelling in autorickshaw bearing registration no.KL-38-E-2273 driven by the first respondent and when he reached the place by name Pareekanni, the autorickshaw dashed against the compound wall of a house while giving way to a 2025:KER:58797 MACA NO. 372 OF 2020 3 truck, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. The incident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent/owner-cum-driver of the autorickshaw. A sum of ₹10,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.
3. The first respondent/owner-cum driver remained ex parte.
4. The second respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle, but denied negligence on the part of the first respondent. It was also contended that the compensation claimed was quite excessive.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was adduced by the second respondent/insurer.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent/owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle 2025:KER:58797 MACA NO. 372 OF 2020 4 resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹2,29,100/- together with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioner has come up in appeal.
7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.
8. Heard both sides
9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following heads is challenged by the claim petitioner - Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the latter was working as Marketing Manager, Mathrubhumi Publications Ltd., and was earning ₹20,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income as ₹8,000/- which is quite low going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal 2025:KER:58797 MACA NO. 372 OF 2020 5 Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236, where the notional income of even a coolie in the year 2016 was liable to be fixed at ₹10,500/-. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer that in the absence of any materials on record, the Tribunal was justified in fixing the notional income as ₹8,000/-. There is no infirmity in the same calling for an interference by this Court.
9.1. This is not a case in which the claim petitioner could not have produced evidence to prove his income. However, for reasons best known to him, the same has not been produced. The fact that the claim petitioner, at the time of the accident, was working as Marketing Manager, Mathrubhumi Publications Ltd, is not disputed. That being so and in the absence of any other evidence on record to establish his income, I find that his notional income can be fixed at ₹12,000/- per month.
Loss of earnings
10. The materials on record show that following injuries 2025:KER:58797 MACA NO. 372 OF 2020 6 were sustained by the claim petitioner:
"1) fracture two part with anterior dislocation right shoulder
2) fracture four part with posterior dislocation left shoulder
3) inability to move both shoulders"
The claim petitioner was hospitalized for a period of 6 days. He also underwent a surgery. Therefore, taking into account the nature of injuries and the surgery that he had to undergo, in all probability, he might have been unable to work for a period of 6 months. Therefore, I find that he can be granted compensation towards loss of earnings for a period of 6 months, that is ₹72,000/- (12,000 x 6 months).
Compensation for pain and suffering 11 It is pointed out that though an amount of ₹1,00,000/- was claimed under this head, the Tribunal has granted an amount of ₹40,000/- only. In the light of the injuries sustained; the period of hospitalization and the surgery/medical interventions undergone by 2025:KER:58797 MACA NO. 372 OF 2020 7 him, I find that an amount of ₹70,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable.
Percentage of permanent disability
12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that as per Ext.A6 certificate, the Medical Board has assessed the disability as 30%. The Tribunal without any justification scaled down the disability to 10% which is an error committed by the Tribunal, which needs to be rectified. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer that taking into account the nature of injuries sustained, the Tribunal was right in fixing the disability as 10%. Therefore, no interference in the same is called for.
12.1. Ext.A6 certificate reads thus:
"This is to certify C.Jayakrishnan aged 52 years residing at Chandralayam (H), Thodupuzha (PO), Idukki, whose signature/thumb impression above has been examined the Medical Board today and we found that he/she is suffering from Uniting two part fracture of (R) humeral head and reduced dislocation of (R) 2025:KER:58797 MACA NO. 372 OF 2020 8 shoulder joint with implant insitu. United four part fracture of the (L) upper humerus and reduced shoulder dislocation.
We certify that he is a Locomotor/Handicapped and the resultant permanent disability is assessed to be 30% (Thirty percent) and comes under the category Mild.......................
A case of RTA sustained B/L shoulder injuries with proximal humerus fracture. Treated by reduction of the shoulder dislocation and ORIF of (R) upper humerus fracture and ORIF of upper humerus fracture (L) side.
Now patient developed post traumatic shoulder periarthritis with reduction of the most of the both shoulder.
(R) (L)
Shoulder abduction 90° 70°
Internal rotation 20 5°
External rotation 20° 50°
Flexion 45° 45°
Extension 20 20°
Pain while lifting objects even of medium wt. Pain in (L) lateral position and difficulty in carrying out his daily activities of living."
The claim petitioner, being a marketing manager, might have to travel considerably in connection with his employment. In such 2025:KER:58797 MACA NO. 372 OF 2020 9 circumstances, taking into account the nature of injuries sustained and the disabilities caused, I find that the functional disability can be fixed as 20%.
13. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent:
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in No. claimed Awarded by appeal (in ₹) Tribunal (in ₹) (in ₹)
1. Loss of earning 80,000/- 16,000/- 72,000/-
(8,000 x 2) (12,000 x 6)
2. Transport to 30,000/- 13,000/- 13,000/-
hospital (No Modification)
3. Extra 20,000/- 5,000/- 5,000/-
nourishment (No Modification)
4. Damage to 9,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/-
clothing and (No Modification)
articles
5. Expenses 110430.25/- 2,423/- 2,423/-
incurred for (No Modification)
treatment
6. Future 40,000/- 25,000/- 25,000/-
treatment (No Modification)
7. Exenses for 25,000/- 1,800/- 1,800/-
bystander (No Modification)
8. Pain and 1,00,000/- 40,000/- 70,000/-
sufferings,
discomforts and
inconvenience
2025:KER:58797
MACA NO. 372 OF 2020
10
9. Continuing 4,00,000/- 1,24,800/- 3,74,400/-
permanent (8,000x12x (12,000 x12 x13x
disability 13x10/100) 20/100)
10 Loss of future 2,10,000/- Nil Nil
prospects (No Modification)
Total 10,24,430.25/- 2,29,023/- 5,64,623/-
limited to rounded to
10,00,000/- 2,29,100/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of ₹3,35,523/- (total compensation = ₹5,64,623/- that is, ₹2,29,100/- granted by the Tribunal plus ₹3,35,523/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization (excluding the period of 131 days delay in filing the appeal) and proportionate costs. The second respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount before the Tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claim petitioner at the earliest in accordance with law after making deductions, if any.
2025:KER:58797 MACA NO. 372 OF 2020 11 Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA JUDGE NP