Kerala High Court
Mr.Santhosh vs Mr.Sinil Sekhar P on 21 July, 2025
M.A.C.A. No.359 of 2020
1
2025:KER:54037
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. 359 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 20.09.2019 IN OP(MV)NO.506 OF
2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
IRINJALAKUDA.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MR.SANTHOSH,
AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O.APPUKUTTAN, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PARAPULLY BAZAR DESOM, LOKAMALESWARAM VILLAGE,
KODUNGALLUR.P.O, THRISSUR, PIN-680 664.
BY ADV SRI.V.BINOY RAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 MR.SINIL SEKHAR P.,
S/O.SEKHARAN P.K., POONNATHARA HOUSE,
MANNAM DESOM AND P.O., NORTH PARAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 520.
2 MR.NOUFAL SUBAIR.V.,
S/O.SUBAIR, VYPPINKATTIL HOUSE, NEDUMKANAM DESOM,
KARUMATHRA VILLAGE AND P.O,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 123.
3 THE MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., 2ND FLOOR, K.K.ABDU
BUILDING, ROOM NO.IV/1145, VADAKKENADA, KODUNGALLUR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 664.
BY ADV SHRI.SEBASTIAN VARGHESE(K/141/2000)
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.359 of 2020
2
2025:KER:54037
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.359 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the claim petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.506/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 20/09/2019. The respondents herein are the respondents in the petition. 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 21/02/2016 at about 02:10 p.m., while he was riding motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-47/D-6368 through Chandappura - Eriyad public road and when he reached the place by name Abdulla road junction, car bearing registration No.KL-42/E-2202 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down as a result of which he M.A.C.A. No.359 of 2020 3 2025:KER:54037 sustained grievous injuries. An amount of ₹10,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.
3. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/driver remained ex parte.
4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver. It was also contended that the amount claimed was excessive.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the respondents. Ext.X1 Medical Board report was also marked.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the offending car resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹6,02,060/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, M.A.C.A. No.359 of 2020 4 2025:KER:54037 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, a professional driver, was earning ₹30,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income as ₹8,000/- only which is quite low and hence needs to be enhanced. He also relies on the dictum in Manusha Sreekumar v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., (2022) 17 SCC 321: AIR 2022 SC 5161. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that in case the Court is inclined to accept the argument of the claim petitioner that the income be enhanced, it may be fixed according to the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, M.A.C.A. No.359 of 2020 5 2025:KER:54037 Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236.
9.1. In Manusha Sreekumar (Supra), the deceased was a self employed man, who is described by the Apex Court as a person, who donned multiple hats so as to provide a comfortable living for his family. It was alleged that the deceased was a fish vendor-cum-driver earning at least ₹25,000/- per month. In support of the claim, various documentary evidence was produced to prove his financial capacity, which were- (i) course certificate showing that the deceased had completed two years course in electronic mechanic trade; (ii) a job training certificate at Sun Generic Cables Pvt. Ltd.; (iii) Passport of the deceased indicating that he was earlier employed in the Sultanate of Oman; (iv) a certificate to show that he was receiving rent from a shop in the Municipal Market shopping complex; (v) a job offer letter dated 11/12/2014 from the United Kingdom, offering the position of Telecom Rigger; (vi) bank statements of the deceased and (vii) certificate of Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Board. The Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹17,500/- per month (₹14,000/- + ₹3,500/- rent).
M.A.C.A. No.359 of 20206
2025:KER:54037 9.2. In the case on hand, Ext.A8 driving licence and the fact that the claim petitioner is a driver is not seen disputed. Therefore, in the facts and circumstance of the case, I am of the opinion that the notional income can be fixed at ₹13,000/- per month. Loss of earnings
10. The materials on record show that the claim petitioner sustained the following injuries:-
" 1. Proximal jejunal perforation with peritonitis.
2. Small contusion dorsal cortex of upper inter polar region of left kidney."
He was hospitalized for a period of 10 days. Therefore, taking into account the nature of injuries sustained, in all probability, he might have been unable to work for a period of 8 months and hence, he can be granted an amount of ₹13,000/- x 8 months = ₹1,04,000/-.
10.1. The learned counsel for the claim petitioner also challenges the compensation that has been awarded under the other heads by the Tribunal. On going through the Award, I find that just and reasonable compensation has been granted and therefore the compensation awarded under the other heads does not require any M.A.C.A. No.359 of 2020 7 2025:KER:54037 enhancement.
11. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent :
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in No. claimed Awarded by appeal Tribunal 1 Loss of earnings ₹1,80,000/- ₹40,000/- ₹1,04,000/-
(₹13,000/- x 8 months) 2 Transportation ₹20,000/- ₹5,000/- ₹5,000/-
expenses (No modification)
3 Damage to ₹20,000/- ₹2,000/- ₹2,000/-
clothing (No modification)
4 Extra ₹30,000/- ₹3,000/- ₹3,000/-
nourishment (No modification)
5 Bystander's ₹40,000/- ₹3,000/- ₹3,000/-
expenses (No modification)
6 Medical ₹3,00,000/- ₹93,060/- ₹93,060/-
expenses (No modification)
7 Pain and ₹2,00,000/- ₹80,000/- ₹80,000/-
suffering (No modification)
8 Permanent ₹4,00,000/- ₹3,36,000/- ₹5,46,000/-
disability and (₹13,000/-
loss of earning x25/100x12x14 )
power
9 Loss of ₹1,00,000/- ₹40,000/- ₹40,000/-
amenities (No modification)
Total ₹12,90,000/- ₹6,02,060/- ₹8,76,060/-
is limited to
₹10,00,000/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the M.A.C.A. No.359 of 2020 8 2025:KER:54037 compensation by a further amount of ₹2,74,000/- (total compensation ₹8,76,060/-, that is, ₹6,02,060/- granted by the Tribunal + ₹2,74,000/- 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 directed to deposit the compensation with interest and costs before the Tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On deposit of the compensation amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claim petitioner at the earliest in accordance with law after making deductions, if any.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
C.S. SUDHA JUDGE ak