Kerala High Court
Deepa P vs Lijin Babu N on 5 August, 2025
M.A.C.A. No.416 of 2020
1
2025:KER:58505
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 416 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 24.08.2019 IN OP(MV)NO.82 OF 2017
ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
TALIPARAMBA.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
DEEPA P.,
AGED 41 YEARS,
D/O. DAMODARAN NAMBIAR, TEACHER, "DEEPTHI",
CHALAKKODE, KOROME AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD
SHRI.JOSE ANTONY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 LIJIN BABU N.,
AGED 30 YEARS,
S/O. RAGHAVAN T.V. NICHIKKATIL HOUSE, ERIAM P.O.,
M.M. BAZAR VIA, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-
670 306 (CONDUCTOR OF THE BUS HEARING REG. NO.KL 59-
D-6875)
2 UMMER KUTTY M.B.,
S/O. MUHAMMED KUNHI, AGED 37 YEARS, MB HOUSE,
CHAPPARAPADAVU P.O. PIN-670581., TALIPARAMBA TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT, (DRIVER-CUM-OWNER OF THE BUS
HEARING REG. NO. KL 59-D-6875)
M.A.C.A. No.416 of 2020
2
2025:KER:58505
3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
MICRO OFFICE, FIROZ COMPLEX, HIGHWAY ROAD,
TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 141. (POLICY
NO.76080931150100001168)
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
SHRI.SURESH SUKUMAR
SRI.ANZIL SALIM
SHRI.SANJAY SELLEN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 05.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. No.416 of 2020
3
2025:KER:58505
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.416 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 05th day of August, 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.82/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Taliparamba (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation
granted by Award dated 24/08/2019. 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 21/05/2016 at
about 04:15 p.m., while she was pillion riding on scooter bearing
registration no. KL-59-C-5924 through Payyanur public road and
when she reached in front of Co-operateive Store, Payyanur, the first
respondent rashly and negligently opened the door of the bus in which
he was the conductor. The door hit the scooter as a result of which she
2025:KER:58505
fell down and sustained grievous injuries. An amount of ₹15,00,000/-
was claimed as compensation under various heads.
3. The first respondent/conductor and the second
respondent/driver-cum-owner did not file written statement.
4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement
admitting the policy but denying negligence on the part of the first
respondent/conductor of the offending vehicle. It was also contended
that the amount claimed was excessive.
5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and
Exts.A1 to A17 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No
oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents.
Exts.X1 and X2, Certificate of Permanent Disability and Standing
Disability Assessment Board Certificate are also marked.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence
on the part of the first respondent/conductor of the offending bus
resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹6,43,000/-
together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition
2025:KER:58505
till the date of 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. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim
petitioner that in the light of Exts.X1 and X2, the Tribunal ought to
have granted compensation towards permanent disability. However, no
amount has been granted and therefore, reasonable amount is to be
awarded under this head. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the third respondent/insurer that Ext.X2 certificate has
been issued by the Board, Government Taluk Headquarters Hospital,
Taliparamba. In case the claim petitioner had any grievance against
the same, she ought to have preferred an appeal to the State Board and
not obtain a new certificate as was done in this case. On the other
hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that
I.A.No.3529 of 2018 had been filed before the Tribunal pursuant to
2025:KER:58505
which after hearing both sides, the application was allowed and the
claim petitioner referred to the District Medical Board, Kozhikode.
The certificate issued by the District Board, that is, Ext. X1 shows that
the disability is 37% and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have granted
compensation under this head.
10. The case of the claim petitioner is that she was a
teacher in an aided school at the time of the accident. The claim
petitioner when examined as PW1 deposed that due to the accident she
is unable to use her left hand to its optimum as she was using earlier.
Being a Chemistry teacher she has to conduct practical classes. After
the incident she is unable to properly hold the various apparatus
required for the classes. There have been occasions where the test
tube/apparatus slipped from her hand and broke. This part of the
testimony of PW1 has not been cross examined. As noticed earlier,
the claim petitioner being a teacher was getting a fixed monthly salary
and there is no evidence of any loss of income during her period of
service in the school. Therefore, whatever disability that has been
caused due to the injuries will affect only her earning power after
2025:KER:58505
retirement. That being the position, in the light of the testimony of
PW1 which has not been discredited, I find that based on Exts.X1 and
X2, the percentage of disability can be fixed as 12%.
11. Now the next step is to fix the notional income of the
claim petitioner after retirement. As noticed earlier, she is a teacher,
and so in all probability, after retirement also she might or may take up
similar assignments. In the facts and circumstances of the case, fixing
the notional income at ₹20,000/- after retirement for the claim
petitioner would be just and reasonable. Therefore, compensation for
permanent disability is ₹20,000/- x12x9x12/100 = ₹2,59,200/-
12. 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 ₹1,00,000/- ₹1,69,300/- ₹1,69,300/-
(No modification)
2 Partial loss of -- -- --
earning (No modification)
3 Transportation ₹25,000/- ₹25,950/- ₹25,950/-
charges (No modification)
4 Extra ₹50,000/- ₹4,000/- ₹4,000/-
nourishment (No modification)
5 Damages to ₹5,000/- ₹1,000/- ₹1,000/-
2025:KER:58505
clothing and (No modification)
articles
6 Medical ₹4,00,000/- ₹2,84,335/- ₹2,84,335/-
Expenses (No modification)
7 Future medical -- -- --
expenses (No modification)
8 Bystander's ₹2,00,000/- ₹8,400/- ₹8,400/-
expenses (No modification)
9 Pain and ₹2,00,000/- ₹1,00,000/- ₹1,00,000/-
sufferings (No modification)
10 Compensation ₹5,00,000/- ₹50,000/- ₹50,000/-
for loss of (No modification)
amenities
11 Compensation ₹2,00,000/- -- ₹2,59,200/-
for permanent (₹20,000/-
disability x12x9x12/100)
12 Compensation ₹2,00,000/- -- --
for loss of (No modification)
earning power/
disfiguration
Total ₹18,80,000/- ₹6,42,985/- ₹9,02,185/-
claim limited
to
₹15,00,000/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹2,59,200/- (total compensation
= ₹9,02,185/-, that is, ₹6,42,985/- granted by the Tribunal +
₹2,59,200/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate of 8% per
annum from the date of petition till date of realization and
2025:KER:58505
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
