Kerala High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Adith Salim (Minor) on 21 July, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.348 of 2020
1
2025:KER:54032
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1947
MACA NO. 348 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 27.09.2019 IN OPMV NO.1026 OF
2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM.
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
KOTTAKKAL ARYA VAIDYASALA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD,
ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
ADITH SALIM (MINOR),
AGED 16 YEARS,
S/O.SALIM O.V., REP. BY FATHER AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN, SALIM O.V., S/O.VISWAN,
AGED 53 YEARS, ONIYATH HOUSE,
EROOR WEST P.O., TRIPUNITHURA, NADAMA VILLAGE,
KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682306.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP
SMT.T.MANASY
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 21.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.348 of 2020
2
2025:KER:54032
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.348 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of July 2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the third respondent/insurer in O.P.(MV) No.1026/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam (the Tribunal), aggrieved by Award dated 27/09/2019. The sole respondent herein is the claim petitioner. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.
2. According to the claim petitioner, on 09/01/2016 at 06:50 p.m., while he was pillion riding on motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-39-H-3685 through Eroor
- Tripunithura road and when he reached near S.N.Junction, motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-07-R-2699 ridden by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorbike in which he was travelling, as a result of which he fell down and M.A.C.A.No.348 of 2020 3 2025:KER:54032 sustained grievous injuries.
3. The first respondent-owner cum rider of the offending vehicle filed written statement denying negligence alleged against him.
4. The second respondent-insured of the offending motorcycle remained ex-parte.
5. The third respondent-insurer filed written statement admitting the policy but denying negligence on the part of the first respondent. The averments in the petition regarding age, injuries and the period of treatment of the claim petitioner were disputed. The amount of compensation claimed under various heads was contended to be exorbitant.
6. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A10 and X1 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents.
7. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent-rider of the M.A.C.A.No.348 of 2020 4 2025:KER:54032 offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹6,86,305/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the third respondent/insurer has come up in appeal.
8. 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.
9. Heard both sides.
10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that in the light of the dictum in Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd., 2014 (14) SCC 396 :AIR 2014 SC 736, the amount of compensation that the claim petitioner was entitled under the head pain and suffering, physical shock, hardship, inconvenience, discomfort etc. and loss of amenities on account of permanent disability was ₹3,00,000/-. However, the Tribunal granted an amount of ₹5,00,000/- that is, ₹ 1,00,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering; ₹3,00,000/- towards compensation for M.A.C.A.No.348 of 2020 5 2025:KER:54032 disfiguration and disability and ₹1,00,000/- towards compensation for loss of amenities and comforts. This is wrong in the light of the settled principle and hence the same needs to be rectified.
10.1. In the light of the aforesaid dictum, the maximum amount that the claim petitioner is entitled to is ₹3,00,000/-. Therefore, the amount of ₹1,00,000/- each awarded under the heads compensation for pain and suffering and for loss of amenities and comforts over and above the amount of ₹3,00,000/- granted shall stand deducted.
11. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent:
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in No. claimed Awarded by appeal Tribunal (in ₹) (in ₹) (in ₹)
1. Transport to 3,000/- 5,000/- 5,000/-
hospital and back (No modification) to home
2. Attendant 15,000/- 7,650/- 7,650/-
expenses (No modification)
3. Extra nourishment 10,000/- 20,000/- 20,000/-
(No modification)
4. Damage to clothes 2,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/-
and articles (No modification)
5. Treatment 1,75,000/- 1,52,655/- 1,52,655/-
expenses (No modification)
M.A.C.A.No.348 of 2020
6
2025:KER:54032
6. Compensation for 40,000/- 1,00,000/- deducted
pain and
sufferings
7. Compensation for 2,00,000/- 3,00,000/- 3,00,000/-
disfiguration and (No modification)
disability
8. Compensation for 25,000/- 0 Nil
future treatment (No modification)
9. Compensation for 30,000/- 100,000/- deducted
loss of amenities
and comforts
Total 5,00,000/- 6,86,305/- 4,86,305/-
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by deducting the compensation by an amount of ₹2,00,000/- (total compensation = ₹4,86,305/-, that is, ₹6,86,305/- granted by the Tribunal minus ₹2,00,000 /- deducted in appeal).
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA JUDGE Jms