Kerala High Court
Abdul Azees vs Subi C.S on 6 August, 2025
1
MACA No.126 of 2021 2025:KER:58670
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 126 OF 2021
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 05.11.2020 IN O.P.(MV) NO.431 OF 2018
OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA
-------------
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ABDUL AZEES, AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.HASSAINAR, ELATTUPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE,
VADATTUPARA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL
SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL
SHRI.ASWIN KUMAR M J
SMT.HELEN P.A.
SHRI.ARUN ROY
SRI.SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI
SHRI.MUHAMMED SUHAIR C.A
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SUBI C.S., AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O.SOMAN.C.P., CHUNDAPURAKKAL HOUSE, PONNURE P.O.,
IDAKKALATHUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680 552.
2 DAVIS K.J., AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O.JOHN, KOLLANNOOR HOUSE, 8/237,
KAIVALLIAM, ANUGRAHA ROAD, PERAMANGALAM P.O.,
THRISSUR-680 545.
3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
PARK HOUSE ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR-680 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
2
MACA No.126 of 2021 2025:KER:58670
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., PARK HOUSE ROUND
NORTH, THRISSUR-680 001.
BY ADV.SHRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
MACA No.126 of 2021 2025:KER:58670
JUDGMENT
The appellant was the claimant before the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Muvattupuzha. He met
with an accident on 23.04.2018. The accident was caused by
the motorcycle driven by the 1st respondent, owned by the 2nd
respondent, and insured with the 3rd respondent herein. At
the time of the accident, the appellant was 39 years old. The
MACT, by its award dated 05.11.2020, has fixed the salary of
the appellant notionally at Rs.10,000/- and also arrived at the
disability at 8% for awarding the amounts as seen from the
impugned award.
2. Heard Sri.Sooraj T. Elenjickal, the learned counsel for
the appellant and Sri.Thomas Mathew Nellimootil, the learned
Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent Insurance Company.
There is no appearance for respondents 1 and 2, in spite of
the service of notice.
MACA No.126 of 2021 2025:KER:58670
3. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend
that the MACT erred in notionally fixing the monthly income
at Rs.10,000/-, when the appellant had relied upon Exts.A10
to A12 documents, in support of the contention that the salary
was Rs.20,000/-. It is true that the appellant had relied upon
Ext.A10 to A12 documents in support of his contentions that
the monthly salary was to the extent of Rs.20,000/-. But the
appellant had not proved the afore documents by adducing
evidence. When that be so, the findings contained in
paragraph 11 of the impugned award to the extent of fixation
of salary at Rs.10,000/-, cannot be faulted. However, going
by the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in
Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC
236], notional income ought to have been fixed at
Rs.11,500/-. At the time of the accident, the claimant was 39
years old; hence, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is
correct.
MACA No.126 of 2021 2025:KER:58670
4. The second issue arising for consideration is with
reference to the claim for compensation on account of the
continued disability. The appellant had relied upon Ext.C1,
which admittedly shows the disability at 14%. This Court
notices that the disability was the one that was noticed in
paragraph 10 of the impugned award. Noticing the afore
disability, the MACT has found that the disability requires to
be quantified at 8% alone.
5. However, the learned counsel for the appellant
sought to rely on the judgment of this Court in Thresiamma
Sebastian v. Renu Swamidas and Ors. [2024 (5) KLT
198], in support of the contention that once the Medical
Board has certified the disability at 14%, the Tribunal ought
to have accepted the same. This Court notices the afore
judgment, wherein it has been categorically found that it is
for the Insurance Company to summon the doctors, if it has
a case that the certification by the Medical Board is not to be
accepted. In the case at hand, such a course of action has
MACA No.126 of 2021 2025:KER:58670
not been adopted by the respondent herein. Hence, I am of
the opinion that the certificate at Ext.C1, as per which the
disability has been certified at 14% is to be acted upon. The
appellant is entitled for the afore benefit also.
6. In such circumstances, the appellant is entitled to
get an amount of Rs.2,89,800/- (11,500x15x12x14%). The
compensation eligibility of the appellant would be as under;
Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in Total
Compensation for claimed awarded Appeal compensation
(In Rs.) (In Rs.)
Loss of earnings 120000 20000 - 20000
Transport to hospital 15000 3000 - 3000
Damage to clothings 5000 2000 - 2000
Extra nourishment 12000 10000 - 10000
Medical expenses 90000 71567 - 71567
Future medical 40000 25000 - 25000
expenses
Bystander expenses 20000 3500 - 3500
Pain and suffering 100000 40000 - 40000
mental shock and
agony
Loss of amenities and 100000 20000 - 20000
discomfort
deformities
Continuing disabilities 200000 144000 289800/- 289800
Total 500000 339067 289800 484867
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award
MACA No.126 of 2021 2025:KER:58670
is modified, entitling the claimants to get a total compensation
of Rs.1,45,800/- after deducting the amount already awarded
by the Tribunal with interest at 7% per annum from the date
of the petition till realization and proportionate costs.
Resultantly, the captioned appeal would stand disposed
of.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
ln
