Kerala High Court
Abdu Rahman T.V.M vs National Insurance Company Limited on 7 August, 2025
2025:KER:58808
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 293 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 24.08.2019 IN OPMV NO.1475 OF
2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
BO AMBIKA ARCADE, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR, KOZHIKODE,
REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KOCHI
REGIONAL OFFICE, OMANA BUILDINGS, NEW STREET,
KOCHI - 682 031.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR
SMT.P.K.RESHMA (KALARICKAL)
SMT.REVATHY P. MANOHARAN
SMT.STEFIN THOMAS
SMT.AMRITHA SUBIN
SRI SANIN V.U.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 2 IN OPMV:
1 ABDU RAHMAN T.V.M.,
AGED 51, S/O.BEERAN KOYA, NIFRAS NAYIPALAM,
KALLAI P.O., KUNDUNGAL, KOZHIKODE - 673 003.
2 AFRA RAHMAN P.T.,
AGED 21, D/O.ABDU RAHMAN, NIFRAS NAYIPALAM,
KALLAI P.O., KUNDUNGAL, KOZHIKODE - 673 003.
3 NIHAD RAHMAN P.T.,
AGED 17, BEING MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER
AND NEXT FRIEND ABDU RAHMAN, RESIDING AT NIFRAS
NAYIPALAM, KALLAI P.O., KUNDUNGAL,
KOZHIKODE - 673 003.
2025:KER:58808
MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases
2
4 KADEEJA RAHMAN,
AGED 8 BEING MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AND
NEXT FRIEND ABDU RAHMAN, NIFRAS NAYIPALAM, KALLAI
P.O., KUNDUNGAL, KOZHIKODE - 673 003.
5 A.K.KUNJAMMA,
AGED 43, W/O.THANKAPPAN, ESJEE AND CO., SG
SHOPPING MALL, VADAKKE STAND, THRISSUR - 680 022.
6 JESWIN SHAJI,
AGED 43, S/O.SHAJI K.T., MUTTATHUSSERY, CHEMBUKAVU
P.O., THRISSUR - 680 005.
BY ADVS.
SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN
SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
SMT.K.N.RAJANI
SMT.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.
SMT.ANILA PETER
SRI.SAJEN THAMPAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 31.07.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.379/2020, 1389/2020
AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 07.08.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:58808
MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 379 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 24.08.2019 IN OPMV NO.1500 OF
2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT IN OPMV:
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
BO AMBIKA ARCADE, M.G ROAD, THRISSUR,KOZHIKODE,
REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KOCHI
REGIONAL OFFICE, OMANA BUILDINGS, JEW STREET,
KOCHI-682 031
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR
SMT.P.K.RESHMA (KALARICKAL)
SMT.REVATHY P. MANOHARAN
SMT.STEFIN THOMAS
SMT.AMRITHA SUBIN
SRI SANIN V.U.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 2 IN OPMV:
1 KADEEJA RAHMAN
AGED 8 YEARS
BEING MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AND NEXT
FRIEND ABDU RAHMAN, NIFRAS NAYIPALAM, KALLAI P.O.,
KUNDUNGAL, KOZHIKODE-673 003
2 A.K.KUNJAMMA
W/O. THANKAPPAN,ESJEE AND CO.,SG SHOPPING MALL,
VADAKKE STAND, THRISSUR-680 022
2025:KER:58808
MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases
4
3 JESWIN SHAJI,
S/O. SHAJI K.T., MUTTATHUSSERY, CHEMBUKAVU P.O.,
THRISSUR-680 005
BY ADVS.
SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN
SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
SMT.K.N.RAJANI
SMT.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.
SMT.ANILA PETER
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 31.07.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.293/2020 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 07.08.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:58808
MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 1389 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 01.01.2020 IN OPMV NO.1499 OF
2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT IN OPMV:
1 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
BO AMBIKA ARCADE, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR - 680 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (LEGAL),
KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, OMANA BUILDINGS,
JEW STREET, KOCHI - 682031.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR
SMT.P.K.RESHMA (KALARICKAL)
SMT.REVATHY P. MANOHARAN
SMT.STEFIN THOMAS
SMT.AMRITHA SUBIN
SRI SANIN V.U.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 2 IN OPMV:
1 AFRA RAHMANP.T.
AGED 23, D/O.ABDU RAHMAN, NIFRAS NAYIPALAM,
KALLAI P.O., KUNDUNGAL, KOZHIKODE - 673003.
2 A.K.KUNJAMMA
W/O.THANKAPPAN, ESJEE AND CO., SG SHOPPING MALL,
VADAKKE STAND, THRISSUR -680 022.
2025:KER:58808
MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases
6
3 JESWIN SHAJI
S/O.SHAJI K.T., MUTTATHUSSERY,
CHEMBUKAVU P.O., THRISSUR - 680 005.
BY ADVS.
SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN
SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
SMT.K.N.RAJANI
SMT.ANILA PETER
SMT.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.
SMT.A.D.DIVYA
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 31.07.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.293/2020 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 07.08.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:58808
MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases
7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 2293 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 24.08.2019 IN OPMV NO.1475 OF
2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 ABDU RAHMAN T.V.M.,
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. BEERAN KOYA, RESIDING AT NIFRAS, NAYIPALAM,
KALLAI P.O., KUNDUNGAL, KOZHIKODE-673003.
2 AFRA RAHMAN P.T.,
AGED 21 YEARS
D/O. ABDU RAHMAN, RESIDING AT NIFRAS, NAYIPALAM,
KALLAI P.O., KUNDUNGAL, KOZHIKODE-673003.
3 NIHAD,
S/O. ABDU RAHMAN, RESIDING AT NIFRAS, NAYIPALAM,
KALLAI P.O., KUNDUNGAL, KOZHIKODE-673003.
4 KADEEJA RAHMAN, (MINOR)
AGED 9 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AND NEXT
FRIEND ABDU RAHMAN, RESIDING AT NIFRAS NAYIPALAM,
KALLAI P.O., KUNDUNGAL, KOZHIKODE-673003.
SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN
SMT.A.D.DIVYA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 3, 1 & 2:
1 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
BO AMBIKA ARCADE, M.G. ROAD, P.O., THRISSUR-
680001, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER.
2025:KER:58808
MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases
8
2 ADDL.R2: A.K.KUNJAMMA (IMPLEADED)
AGE NOT KNOWN, W/0. THANKAPPAN, ESJEE & CO., SG
SHOPPING MALL, VADAKKE STAND, THRISSUR - 680620
3 ADDL.R3: JESWIN SHAJI (IMPLEADED)
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. SHAJI.K.T., MUTTATHUSSERY,
CHENBUKAVU.P.O., THRISSUR - 680020
(ADDL.R2 & R3 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
31/7/25 IN IA 1/21 IN MACA 2293/2020)
BY ADV SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 31.07.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.293/2020 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 07.08.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:58808
MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases
9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 2404 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 24.08.2019 IN OPMV NO.1500 OF
2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
KADEEJA RAHMAN(MINOR)
AGED 9 YEARS, DATE OF BIRTH 20-03-2011,
REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND ABDU
RAHMAN, RESIDING AT NIFRAS NAYIPALAM, KALLAI (PO),
KOZHIKODE 673 003
BY ADV SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 3, 1 & 2:
1 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
BO AMBIKA ARCADE, M.G ROAD, P.O THRISSUR
PIN 680 001 REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER
2 ADDL.R2: A.K.KUNJAMMA (IMPLEADED)
AGE NOT KNOWN, W/0. THANKAPPAN, ESJEE & CO., SG
SHOPPING MALL, VADAKKE STAND, THRISSUR - 680620
3 ADDL.R3: JESWIN SHAJI (IMPLEADED)
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. SHAJI.K.T., MUTTATHUSSERY,
CHENBUKAVU.P.O., THRISSUR - 680020
(ADDL.R2 & R3 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
31/7/25 IN IA 1/21 IN MACA 2293/2020)
BY ADV SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 31.07.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.293/2020 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 07.08.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:58808
MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases
10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 3433 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 01.01.2020 IN OPMV NO.1499 OF
2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
AFRA RAHMAN P. T.
AGED 21 YEARS
D/O. ABDU RAHMAN, RESIDING AT NIFRAS NAYIPALAM,
KALLAI P. O., KUNDUNGAL, KOZHIKODE - 673 003.
SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN
SMT.A.D.DIVYA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 3, 1 & 2:
1 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
BO - AMBIKA ARCADE, M. G. ROAD, P. O. THRISSUR,
PIN - 680 001, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER.
2 ADDL.R2: A.K.KUNJAMMA (IMPLEADED)
AGE NOT KNOWN, W/0. THANKAPPAN, ESJEE & CO., SG
SHOPPING MALL, VADAKKE STAND, THRISSUR - 680620
3 ADDL.R3: JESWIN SHAJI (IMPLEADED)
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. SHAJI.K.T., MUTTATHUSSERY,
CHENBUKAVU.P.O., THRISSUR - 680020
(ADDL.R2 & R3 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
31/7/25 IN IA 1/21 IN MACA 2293/2020)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 31.07.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.293/2020 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 07.08.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:58808
MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases
11
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. Nos.293, 379, 1389, 2293, 2404 & 3433 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of August 2025
JUDGMENT
MACA Nos.293, 379, 2404 & 2293 of 2020 have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the third respondent/insurer and the claim petitioners respectively in O.P.(MV) Nos.1475 and 1500 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the common Award dated 24/08/2019. M.A.C.A. Nos.1389 and 3433 of 2020 have been filed by the third respondent/insurer and the claim petitioner respectively in O.P.(MV)No.1499 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, aggrieved by the Award dated 01/01/2020. In these appeals, the parties and documents will be referred to as described in the original petitions.
2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 12
2. The claim petitioners in OP(MV) No.1475/2017 are the legal heirs, namely, husband; two daughters and son of deceased Jamsheena. The claim petitioner in OP(MV) No.1500 of 2017 is the minor daughter, and the claim petitioner in OP(MV) No.1499 of 2017, the eldest daughter of the deceased. OP(MV) No.1475/2017 and OP(MV) No.1500/2017 were jointly tried and a common award dated 24/08/2019 passed. OP(MV) No.1499/2017 was separately tried by the Tribunal and Award dated 01/01/2020 passed.
3. According to the claim petitioners, on 02/04/2016 at about 08:45 p.m., while the deceased and her daughters were travelling in scooter bearing registration no.KL-11-AY-2560 from the place by name South Beach to Kothipalam and when they reached the western side of the Kannamparamb Jumaath Mosque, car bearing registration no.KL-08-BA-3999 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against their scooter, as a result of which they sustained grievous injuries. The deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained. A sum of 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 13 ₹40,00,000/- was claimed by the claim petitioners in O.P(MV) No.1475/2017; a sum of ₹5,00,000/- by the claim petitioner in O.P(MV) No.1500/2017 and a sum of ₹50,00,000/- by the claim petitioner in O.P(MV) No.1499/2017 as compensation under various heads.
4. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte.
5. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle, but denied liability. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. The second respondent has not been chargesheeted for negligence and so the insurer is not bound to indemnify the insured. The age, occupation etc. of the deceased and her daughters were disputed. It was also contended that the compensation claimed was quite excessive.
6. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A28 and Ext.C1 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 14 and Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the third respondent/insurer in OP(MV) No.1499 of 2017. In OP(MV) Nos.1475 & 1500 of 2017, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A14 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. No documentary evidence was adduced by the third respondent/insurer.
7. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹17,02,000/- in OP(MV) No.1475/2017; ₹1,05,000/- in OP(MV) No.1500/2017 and ₹15,83,000/- in OP(MV) No.1499/2017 together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Awards, the claim petitioners and the third respondent/insurer have come up in appeal.
8. The only point that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 15 Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.
9. Heard both sides M.A.C.A. Nos. 1389 & 3433 of 2020
10. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that as per Ext.A1 FIR and Ext.A3 final report, the second respondent/driver committed offences punishable under Sections 304 and 308 IPC. The car owned by the first respondent and insured with the third respondent was used by the second respondent for a purpose not authorized or for committing an illegal act punishable under Sections 304 and 308 IPC. Therefore, there is no negligence as such on the part of the second respondent/driver. As the vehicle was used for an unauthorized purpose or for an illegal act, there has been a fundamental breach of the policy condition and therefore the third respondent/insurer cannot be burdened with the liability to pay compensation for an accident which occurred by the use of the car for a purpose other than for what it was meant to be used. If at all this Court finds that the third 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 16 respondent/insurer is liable, the right of recovery from the first respondent/owner and the second respondent/driver may be granted. In support of the argument, reference was made to the dictum of a Division Bench of this Court in Krishnan Sreemathy v. Padmanabhan Gangadharan, 2005 KHC 667.
10.1. Per contra, it was submitted on behalf of the claim petitioner; the first respondent/owner and the second respondent/driver that the second respondent/driver has been acquitted in the Sessions Case which was taken on file for the offences punishable under Sections 304 and 308 IPC. In the light of the acquittal, it cannot be held that there was any violation of the policy condition(s) or a fundamental breach of the policy. Hence, the third respondent/insurer cannot be exonerated or liberty given to recover the Award amount from the owner as there was a valid policy in existence at the time of the accident. In support of the argument, reference was made to the dictum in Ajeesh v. Vibitha Varghese, 2024 (6) KHC 115.
2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 17 10.2. In Krishnan Sreemathy (Supra), the claim petition was filed by the legal representatives, that is, the widow and minor children, of one deceased Sivadasan who had been employed as a lorry attendant by the first respondent therein. In the said case, the owner of a goods vehicle used his vehicle with the intention of killing another person. However, it accidentally hit Sivadasan who was standing by the roadside. The question arose as to who should pay the compensation. It was noticed that there was a valid insurance policy and that the driver and cleaner of the lorry were insured to the extent of workmen compensation payable by the first respondent. Therefore, the insurance company was directed to deposit the Award amount before the Tribunal. However, it was found that there was violation of the permit condition as the first respondent/insured was not permitted to use the vehicle as a weapon of offence for murdering a person though it was not intended against Sivadasan who died in the incident. As the owner/insured had used the vehicle as a murderous weapon, the 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 18 contention of the insurer that there was violation of the policy condition was upheld and the insurance company was given the liberty to recover the Award amount from the owner/insured.
10.3. As noticed earlier, OP(MV) No.1499/2020 has been filed by the eldest daughter of the deceased. As per Ext.A3 final report, the second respondent/driver who has been arrayed as accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 304 and 308 IPC. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/owner and the second respondent/driver during the course of arguments handed over a copy of the judgment dated 31/01/2020 in S.C.No.719/2017 on the file of the Court of Session, Kozhikode. The charge framed by the Sessions Court against the accused, namely, the second respondent/driver herein, was under
Sections 304 and 308 IPC. All the witnesses in the case, including the eldest daughter of the deceased herein, namely, the claim petitioner in OP(MV) No.1499/2017, from which MACA No.1389 and 3433 of 2020 have been filed, turned hostile to the prosecution 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 19 case. It is quite disturbing to note that the eldest daughter of the deceased examined as PW4 in the Sessions Case failed to identify the accused and also failed to recall the reason for the accident. As all the material witnesses turned hostile, the second respondent/driver was acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C.
10.4. As per Ext.A3 charge sheet, the charge is for the offences punishable under Sections 304 and 308 IPC only and not under Section 304A or Sections 279, 337 or 338 IPC. Section 304 IPC deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder and Section 308 IPC with attempt to commit culpable homicide.
Culpable homicide defined in Section 299 IPC says that if any person causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. So, culpable homicide consists of doing an act: (a) with the intention of causing death; (b) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; (c) with the knowledge that the act is 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 20 likely to cause death. "Intent" and "knowledge" as the ingredients of Section 299 postulate the existence of a positive mental attitude and this mental attitude is the special mens rea necessary for the offence (See Jayaraj v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1976 SC 1519).
10.5. Section 304A IPC on the other hand deals with causing death by negligence. It says that if a person does any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, is liable to be punished. An offence under Section 304A is committed either by doing a rash or a negligent act. This Section totally excludes the ingredients of Section 299 or Section 300 IPC. (See State of Gujarat v. Haidarali Kalubhai, AIR 1976 SC 1012).
10.6. In the light of the judgment in SC No.719/2017, Ext.A3 final report loses its significance and on the basis of the same, the accused therein cannot be considered to have committed the offences punishable stated therein. Even assuming that Ext.A3 final report can be looked into even after acquittal, the same is of no help to the claim petitioners as the offences alleged are completely 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 21 different and distinct offences. In an application under Section 166 of the Act, it is the primary duty of the claim petitioners to establish negligence.
10.7. Apart from Ext.A3 final report, there is the testimony of the claim petitioner who was examined before the Tribunal as PW1. In the claim petition, the allegation reads ".....A car bearing registration no.KL-08-BA-3999 driven by the second respondent, with exorbitant speed in rash and negligent manner dashed the scooter on which the petitioner was travelling....". In the proof affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination, PW1 does not specifically say that it was the second respondent who was the driver, but only says that the car bearing registration no. KL-08- BA-3999 driven in great speed and negligently hit the scooter in which she was travelling. The testimony of PW1 has to be appreciated in the background of her testimony as PW4 in SC No.719/2017 wherein she deposed that she was unable to recall the driver or the cause of the accident. Her testimony in SC 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 22 No.719/2017 is seen recorded on 17/12/2019 just a few days after she testified before the Tribunal on 09/12/2019. Within days she seems to have forgotten the driver of the offending car or the reason for the accident. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer drew my attention to Ext.A3 final report which describes the manner in which the vehicle was being driven by the second respondent at the relevant time. It is stated that the accused was driving the vehicle in great speed violating the traffic rules and in a zig-zag manner resulting in death of deceased and injuries to the parties involved in the case on hand in addition to two other persons (CW2 and CW4 in Ext.P3 final report). The road at the scene is lying in the north-south direction. The deceased is stated to have been riding her scooter from the north to south and the second respondent from south to north. When the car collided with the scooter ridden by the deceased with her two daughters as pillion riders, due to the impact all three of them including the scooter were thrown into the air and during the course of the descent down, 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 23 the head of the deceased hit on a cement block (കുറ്റി) installed by the side of the road resulting in grievous injuries to which she succumbed. Referring to the narration in the charge sheet regarding the manner in which the accident took place, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the police was justified in charge sheeting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 304 and 308 IPC rather than Section 304A IPC.
10.8. The description of the accident in the final report is indeed disturbing which aspect is further exacerbated by the testimony of the daughter of the deceased who turned hostile to the prosecution case. Therefore, her testimony as PW1 before the Tribunal cannot be given much credence.
10.9. Neither Ext.A3 final report nor the testimony of PW1 helps in establishing negligence. In S.C. No.719/2017, nobody had a case that though the offence under Sections 304 or 308 IPC were not made out, Section 304A IPC would be attracted. The court 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 24 concerned also did not enter into any such finding, but only acquitted the accused therein, that is, the second respondent herein, for the offences punishable under Section 304 and 308 IPC under Section 232 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the final report cannot be of any help to the claim petitioners. However, the fact that a death was caused and the claim petitioner sustained injuries as a result of the accident is not disputed. Being a beneficial legislation, a lenient approach or a liberal interpretation of the pleadings and evidence is required to be made. Hence, excluding the final report/charge sheet and the oral testimony of PW1, let me examine whether there is any other piece of evidence to show negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver.
10.10. Here I refer to the scene mahazar, that is, Ext.A5. It is true that nobody was examined to prove the scene mahazar. It is also true that mere statements in the mahazar cannot be made a ground for finding negligence. However, the marking of the scene mahazar was not objected to by either side before the Tribunal.
2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 25 Moreover, as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Philippose Cherian v. T.A.Edward Lobo, 1991 ACJ 634, a scene mahazar is most often, if not in all cases, prepared by the investigating officer during investigation of the crime. In motor accident cases, scene mahazar is prepared by the police officer while investigating into offences disclosed in the first information report. A police officer is a public servant and the scene mahazar is a record made in discharge of his official duties. The entries in such record are themselves relevant facts under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. When the certified copy of scene mahazar is marked without objection, the admissible portions therein can be used by the Tribunal if none of the parties disputes the correctness thereof. It is open to the party who disputes the correctness of such entries to examine anyone connected with the document for showing that the entries are unreliable. Subject to this and subject to the principles of natural justice, the Tribunals are legally competent to make use of the entries in scene mahazar even if no person connected with its 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 26 making has been examined as a witness.
10.11. As per the scene mahazar, the road at the place of occurrence lying in north-south direction has a width of 10 meters. The deceased was riding her scooter with her daughters as pillion riders from the north to south and the second respondent was driving his car from south to north. Therefore, the right side of the road of the second respondent is the western side and the right side of the road of the deceased was the eastern side. The scene of occurrence is at a distance of 7.9 meters from the western tar end and 2.03 meters from the eastern tar end. This would show that the second respondent/driver went to the wrong side of the road. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence by the second respondent/driver is confirmed though for different reasons. As there is no evidence regarding commission of offences punishable under Section 304 and 308 IPC, this Court is unable to conclude that the vehicle was used for any illegal purpose resulting in a fundamental breach of the policy conditions exonerating the 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 27 third respondent/insurer from the liability. Hence, it can only be held that the third respondent/insurer is liable to indemnify the insured/owner.
11. The Award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following heads is challenged -
Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that though the latter was earning ₹20,000/- per month, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income as ₹10,000/- only, which is quite low going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236 and hence the same needs to be appropriately enhanced. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the amount fixed is reasonable and hence the same does not call for any interference.
11.1. Ext.A6 is the salary certificate relied on by the claim petitioner to establish her income. However, during the course of 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 28 her cross-examination as PW1, it came out that the salary certificate had been issued by the Partner in her father's business. It was also brought out that she was a full time graduate student doing her graduation degree at the relevant time. In such circumstances, fixing the notional income at ₹10,000/- by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same does not call for any interference. Percentage of permanent disability
12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that though the Medical Board as per Ext.C1 has assesed the disability as 59.67%, the Tribunal was not justified in scaling down the percentage of disability to 50%. Actually, the disability ought to have been 100%. In support of the argument, reference is made to the dictum in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, and Sidram v. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 ACJ 2611.
12.1. The Apex Court in Raj Kumar (Supra), followed in Anthony Swami v. M.D., KSRTC, (2020) 7 SCC 161 has explained 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 29 the heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases as :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment.
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non - pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and / or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 30 awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and / or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. The Apex Court has lucidly set out the principles for grant of compensation in cases of permanent physical functional disability as follows: Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 31 be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on despite the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 32 totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.
12.2. In Sidram (Supra), it has been held by the Apex Court that courts should be mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim. The attendant trauma of the victim's having to live in a world entirely different from the one she or he is born into, as an invalid, and with degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete personal choice or autonomy, should forever be in the judge's mind, whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims. Severe limitations inflicted due to such injuries undermine the dignity 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 33 (which is now recognized as an intrinsic component of the right to life under Article 21) of the individual, thus depriving the person of the essence of the right to a wholesome life which she or he had lived, hitherto. From the world of the able bodied, the victim is thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most discomfiting and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstances, there is resultant affront to the injured victim.
12.3. Now the question is, did the Tribunal " nit-pick and award niggardly amounts oblivious of the circumstances"? . Let me examine. Ext.C1 report of the Medical Board reads thus:
"We after careful examination of Smt.Afra Rahman P.T., 20 years, D/o.Abdu Rahman, Nifras, Nayipalam, P.O. Kallai, Kundungal, Kozhikode-673003 whose signature is given above, certify that she is having post RTA sequelae Traumatic Brain injury, other Mental & Behavioral Disorders due to brain damage & dysfunction and is physically handicapped. Her percentage of permanent disability due to the injury is 59.67% (percentage).
47.92%~48% disability cognitive domain as per 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 34 neuropsychological listing.
Processing speed, attention, working memory, planning, verbal+visual learning and memory, difficulty in arithmetic + visuo-constructive ability 48%.
NS opinion: Traumatic brain injury sequelae-2016 mild difficulty in walking underwent execution of (not legible) @ hip ........................................... ..............................(not legible) 48 + 25(90-48)/90 = 59.67% Neuropsychological Assessment Report Diagnosis: Post Traumatic Brain Injury Sequel (TBI in 2016) Reason for Referral: Neuropsychological assessment for quantification of cognitive disability. Test Administered: NIMHANS Head Injury Battery (Rao et.al., 2004) Premorbid Intellectual Functioning: Her premorbid level of intellectual functioning is estimated to be in the average range based on her educational qualification and reported ability to carry out instrumental daily living activities. Behavioural Observations: Patient was conscious and came walking to the testing room with her father. She had a broad based gait and was observed to have co-ordination difficulties in left lower limb. She was alert and oriented to time, place and person. Her attention could be aroused and sustained 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 35 with effort. The rapport could be established easily. She could easily understand and follow the instructions given to her indicative of adequate comprehension. She was speaking relevantly and coherently. Her reaction time was normal and psychomotor activity was within normal range. Her mood appeared to be euthymic, reactive with appropriate range; however instances of anxious affect was observed through the testing.
Test Findings: The findings from neuropsychological assessment are discussed below:
Speed: Motor Speed was assessed using Finger Tapping Test. On this test her motor speed was found to be adequate for both left and right hand (Right hand PR: 50 th-60th Left hand PR: 25th-30th). Digit Symbol Test was attempted to assess mental speed. However in this test she had impaired performance, (PR:7-10th percentile). Overall through the testing as well, she was observed to have slower speed of processing instructions as well as performance of tasks. From these findings it can be inferred that she has impairment in mental speed but adequate motor speed.
Attention: On clinical observations, her attention could be aroused easily and but sustained with encouragement from time to time. Though she was noted to be distracted at times, her attention could be brought back to the task in hand. Focussed attention was assessed using Colour Trails Test - 1 (CT-1). She took 61 seconds to complete CT-1 (Percentile:
2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 36 13th-17th). Sustained attention was assessed using the Digit Vigilance Test, wherein she took 537 seconds for cancellation (PR: 13-16th percentile) with 32 errors of omission (PR:7- 10th) overall suggestive of impaired sustained attention.
Overall her performance was suggestive of impaired attention primarily, the ability to sustain attention. Executive Functions:
1. Fluency: Phonemic fluency was assessed using Controlled Oral Words Association Test (COWAT). On three trials of COWAT, she could generate an Average of 11.33 words (Percentile: 30th-40th). Category fluency was assessed using Animals Names Test (ANT). On ANT she generated the name of 7 animals (Percentile:<5th). The impaired category fluency with relatively better performance in phonemic fluency is indicative of impaired search strategies for conceptual information.
2. Working Memory: Verbal working memory was assessed using Verbal N Back test. In Verbal 1 back condition, her hit score and error score both falls well above the cut off (PR: 5-
95th and 100th respectively). On 2 back condition though he got 08/09 hits, she made 5 errors (PR/(10th) Visuo-spatial working memory was assessed Spatial Span (WMS-IIIIND). On this test, she obtained a total score of 16 (Forward=8 and Backward=8) corresponding to 60th percentile. These finding indicate towards impairment in verbal working Memory and adequate visual working memory.
2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 37
3. Planning: Tower of London test was used to assess her planning ability. On this test she could solve 05 out of 14 problems with the minimum moves (PR: 50th), she took longer time to complete the complex problems (5 move trials- Mean Time PR:<3rd; Mean Move PR: 3rd-6th). The observation during the test indicates that she could not look ahead and performed only by achieving the immediate goals. If gone wrong she had difficulty to modify or change the strategy.
4. Mental Flexibility and Attentional Switching: This was assessed using Colour Trails Test-2 (CT-2). CT-2 taps mental flexibility as it requires the subject to switch between two colours while making the number trail. She completed CT-2 in 142 seconds (PR: 13th-17th). She could scan and switch between one colour set to another adequately however took a longer time to do the same, resulting in impaired performance.
5. Response Inhibition: The Stroop test was attempted to assess response Inhibition. She was able to adequately inhibit and respond adequately in the color naming trial corresponding to an adequate interference score of 134 seconds ( 47 - 50th percentile) Visual Spatial Abilities: Her visual-spatial abilities were tested using Bender Gestalt Test, copy of simple 2-D and 3-D figures as well as the complex figure test copy trial. Her drawing overall was clumsy, simplified, diminished in size and 3D figure drawing was lacking depth, suggestive of 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 38 impaired visual-spatial abilities.
Learning and Memory: Verbal learning and memory was assessed with Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT). On AVLT she could learn 12 words (PR:15th) by the end of 5th learning trial and thereby her total learning score was 50 (PR:
4th-5th). Fluctuation of attention was also observed in her learning curve (Trial 4 having the highest score). She could recall only 8 word (PR:< 5th) immediately after interference and 10 words on delayed recall trial (PR:10 th) corresponding to an overall percent retention of 83.33% (PR:10th). She could correctly recognize all 15 words (PR:>10th) in recognition trial. Visual memory was assessed using Complex figure test and Faces Test (WMS-IIIIND). On complex figure test, she obtained a score of 7 and 4.5 respectively on the immediate and delayed recall trials respectively (PR:< 5thon both). On the Faces she scored 25 in immediate recall trial (PR:<5th) and 24 in delayed recall trial (PR:<5th). The total Percent retention was calculated to be 96% (PR:30th-40th). These findings indicate that she has significant difficulty in encoding both verbal and visual material to be learned as well as with recall of learnt information.
On Clinical examination there was evidence of difficulty in arithmetic- she could do simple addition, subtraction but had difficulty for even simple multiplication and division. Her drawing was clumsy, simplified, diminished in size and 3D figure drawing was lacking depth.
2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 39 To the extent tested, no other agnosias, apraxia, body schema disturbance, reading, writing difficulty, unilateral neglect or route finding difficulty was observed. Personality and Emotional Functioning: There is no history of any significant personality change. Summary of Test Findings: The neuropsychological assessment reveals impairments in processing speed, attention (focused, sustained and divided), category fluency, verbal working memory, complex planning, verbal and visual learning and memory, difficulty in complex arithmetic and visuo-constructive ability.
Thus the patient obtained a total deficit score of 23 out of 48 variables tested, overall indicating 47.92% (Total Deficit Score (23)/Total Variables (48)*100) cognitive disability. Impression: The neuropsychological profile indicates towards Diffused Involvement. Thus on the NIMHANS Head Injury Battery the patient obtained cognitive disability percentage of 47.92% (Total Deficit Score (23)/Total Variables (48) *100).
Recommendations:
• Feedback to the patient, caregivers and treating team regarding the test findings.
• Psycho-education to the caregiver regarding the post traumatic brain injury sequel.
• Cognitive rehabilitation may be helpful in reducing the cognitive deficits.
2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 40 The claim petitioner when examined as PW1 was able to face the trial, comprehend all the questions put to her and answer quite coherently. Therefore, in the light of the dictum in Raj Kumar (Supra); the nature of injuries and disability sustained, the functional disability of 50% fixed by the Tribunal is quite justified.
Percentage to be added towards future prospects
13. The disability on the basis of Ext.C1 has been fixed as 50%. The claim petitioner was aged 19 years at the time of the accident and therefore 40% of the established income is liable to be added towards future prospects. Hence, the Award shall stand modified to the said extent.
14. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent:
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in appeal No. claimed Awarded by (in ₹) (in ₹) Tribunal (in ₹)
1. Loss of 25,00,000/- 10,80,000/- 15,12,000/-
earning power [10,000 x12 [(10,000+40%) x12 x18 x 50/100] x 18 x 50/100] 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 41
2. Medical bills 20,00,000/- 1,77,000/- 1,77,000/-
(No Modification)
3. Bystander's 2,00,000/- 39,000/- 39,000/-
expenses (No Modification)
4. Pain & 1,00,000/- 50,000/- 50,000/-
suffering (No Modification)
5. Loss of 1,00,000/- 1,50,000/- 1,50,000/-
amenities and (No Modification)
enjoyment in
life
6. Transport to 3,000/- 25,000/- 25,000/-
hospital (No Modification)
7. Damage to 2,000/- 2,000/- 2,000/-
clothing (No Modification)
8. Extra 2,000/- 10,000/- 10,000/-
nourishment (No Modification)
9. Future 5,00,000/- 50,000/- 50,000/-
treatment (No Modification)
Total limited to 15,83,000/- 20,15,000/-
50,00,000/-
In the result, MACA No.3433/2020 is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of ₹4,32,000/- (total compensation = ₹20,15,000/- that is, ₹15,83,000/- granted by the Tribunal plus ₹4,32,000/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization and proportionate costs. The third respondent/insurer is 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 42 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. MACA No.1389/2020 is dismissed. MACA No.293, 379, 2293 & 2404 of 2020
15. OP(MV) No.1475/2017 was filed by the husband and three children of the deceased and OP(MV) No.1500/2017 has been filed by the youngest minor daughter of the deceased. I have already found in the earlier appeals based on the scene mahazar that the negligence was on the part of the second respondent/driver. The accident involved in all these cases is one and the same. Therefore the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer which has already been answered and rejected is not being repeated here.
Notional income in MACA No.2293/2020
16. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 43 petitioners that the deceased, a saleswoman aged 39 years, was earning an amount of ₹20,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income at ₹8,000/- only which, going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), is quite low and hence the same needs to be enhanced. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that in the absence of satisfactory evidence to establish the claim regarding the income, the amount that has been fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and that it does not call for any interference.
16.1. As per the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), the notional income of even a coolie in the year 2016 is liable to be fixed at ₹10,500/- per month. That being the position, I find that fixing the notional income of the deceased at ₹10,500/- per month would be just and reasonable.
17. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent:
2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 44 Sl. Head of Amount Amount Modified in No. claim claimed Awarded by appeal (in ₹) Tribunal (in ₹) (in ₹)
1. Loss of 25,00,000/- 15,12,000/- 19,84,500/-
dependency [(8,000+40%) [(10,500+40%) x x12x15x 3/4)] 12 x 15 x 3/4)]
2. Spousal 2,00,000/- 40,000/- 40,000/-
consortium (No Modification)
3. Parental 2,00,000/- 1,20,000/- 1,20,000/-
consortium (No Modification)
4. Loss of estate 2,00,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/-
(No Modification)
5. Funeral 1,00,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/-
expenses (No Modification)
Total limited to 17,02,000/- 21,74,500/-
40,00,000/-
In the result, MACA No.2293/2020 is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of ₹4,72,500/- (total compensation = ₹21,74,500/- that is, ₹17,02,000/- granted by the Tribunal plus ₹4,72,500/- 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 186 days delay in filing the appeal) and 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 45 proportionate costs. The third 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 petitioners at the earliest in accordance with law after making deductions, if any.
Transport to hospital, extra nourishment and damage to clothing and articles in MACA No.2404/2020
18. The claim petitioner herein is the minor 5 year old daughter of the deceased. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that though reasonable amounts were claimed towards transport to hospital, extra nourishment and damage to clothing and articles, no amount was awarded and hence appropriate amounts may be awarded.
18.1. The materials on record show that the claim petitioner was hospitalized for a period of 7 days. In the facts and circumstances of the case, an amount of ₹1,000/- towards transport 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 46 to hospital; ₹2,000/- towards extra nourishment and ₹800/- towards damage to clothing and articles is awarded.
19. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent:
Sl. Head of Amount Amount Modified in
No. claim claimed Awarded by appeal
(in ₹) Tribunal (in ₹)
(in ₹)
1. Disability 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/-
(No Modification)
2. Medical bills 2,50,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/-
(No Modification)
3. Bystander's 50,000/- 4,200/- 4,200/-
expenses (No Modification)
4. Transport to 3,000/- Nil 1,000/-
hospital
5. Extra 2,000/- Nil 2,000/-
nourishment
6. Damage to 2,000/- Nil 800/-
clothing and
articles
Total limited to 1,05,200/- 1,09,000/-
5,00,000/- (Tribunal wrongly
shown the sum as
₹1,05,000/-)
In the result, MACA No.2404/2020 is allowed by enhancing 2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 47 the compensation by a further amount of ₹3,800/- (total compensation = ₹1,09,000/- that is, ₹1,05,200/- granted by the Tribunal plus ₹3,800/- 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 187 days delay in filing the appeal) and proportionate costs. The third 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. MACA Nos.293/2020 and 379/2020 are dismissed.
In the result, MACA Nos.293/2020, 379/2020 & 1389/2020 filed by the third respondent/insurer are dismissed; MACA Nos.2293/2020 and 2404/2020 are allowed and MACA No.3433/2020 is partly allowed.
2025:KER:58808 MACA No.293/2020 and con. cases 48 Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA JUDGE NP