Kerala High Court

Jayakrishnan vs Mani.K.K on 6 August, 2025

                                                2025:KER:58797

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA

 WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1947

                      MACA NO. 372 OF 2020

        AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 10.06.2019 IN OPMV NO.828 OF

2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA

APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:

           JAYAKRISHNAN
           AGED 53 YEARS
           S/O.ARJUNAN NAIR, CHANDRALAYAM HOUSE, THODUPUZHA
           KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUZHA TALUK

           BY ADV SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1      MANI.K.K
           S/O.KUMARAN, KOONNANANICKAL(IV/139(12/300)
           EDVATTY KARA, KARIKODE VILLAGE,
           THODUPUZHA TALUK, PIN-685584

    2      M/S.CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANE COMPANY LTD.
           REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
           ACEL ESTATE NO.40/586, IYYATTIL JUNCTION,
           CHITTOR ROAD, KOCHI-682011

           BY ADV SRI.LINTO FRANCIS


     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 06.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
                                                              2025:KER:58797
MACA NO. 372 OF 2020

                                      2



                             C.S.SUDHA, J.
             ----------------------------------------------------
                       M.A.C.A. No.372 of 2020
             ----------------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 6th day of August 2025

                            JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the claim petitioner in O.P.(MV)

No.828/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

Muvattupuzha, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of

compensation granted by Award dated 10/06/2019. The respondents

herein are respondents 1 and 2 respectively in the petition. In this

appeal, the parties and documents will be referred to as described in

the original petition.

2. According to the claim petitioner, on 07/12/2016 at

about 04:30 p.m., while he was travelling in autorickshaw bearing

registration no.KL-38-E-2273 driven by the first respondent and

when he reached the place by name Pareekanni, the autorickshaw

dashed against the compound wall of a house while giving way to a 2025:KER:58797 MACA NO. 372 OF 2020

truck, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. The

incident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first

respondent/owner-cum-driver of the autorickshaw. A sum of

₹10,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.

3. The first respondent/owner-cum driver remained ex parte.

4. The second respondent/insurer filed written statement

admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending

vehicle, but denied negligence on the part of the first respondent. It

was also contended that the compensation claimed was quite

excessive.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by

either side. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claim

petitioner. No documentary evidence was adduced by the second

respondent/insurer.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary

evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part

of the first respondent/owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle 2025:KER:58797 MACA NO. 372 OF 2020

resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of

₹2,29,100/- together with interest @ 7% per annum from the date

of the petition till 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. 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 was working as Marketing Manager, Mathrubhumi

Publications Ltd., and was earning ₹20,000/- per month. However,

the Tribunal fixed the notional income as ₹8,000/- which is quite

low going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal 2025:KER:58797 MACA NO. 372 OF 2020

Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236, where

the notional income of even a coolie in the year 2016 was liable to

be fixed at ₹10,500/-. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned

counsel for the second respondent/insurer that in the absence of any

materials on record, the Tribunal was justified in fixing the notional

income as ₹8,000/-. There is no infirmity in the same calling for an

interference by this Court.

9.1. This is not a case in which the claim petitioner could not

have produced evidence to prove his income. However, for reasons

best known to him, the same has not been produced. The fact that

the claim petitioner, at the time of the accident, was working as

Marketing Manager, Mathrubhumi Publications Ltd, is not

disputed. That being so and in the absence of any other evidence

on record to establish his income, I find that his notional income

can be fixed at ₹12,000/- per month.

Loss of earnings

10. The materials on record show that following injuries 2025:KER:58797 MACA NO. 372 OF 2020

were sustained by the claim petitioner:

"1) fracture two part with anterior dislocation right shoulder

2) fracture four part with posterior dislocation left shoulder

3) inability to move both shoulders"

The claim petitioner was hospitalized for a period of 6 days. He

also underwent a surgery. Therefore, taking into account the nature

of injuries and the surgery that he had to undergo, in all probability,

he might have been unable to work for a period of 6 months.

Therefore, I find that he can be granted compensation towards loss

of earnings for a period of 6 months, that is ₹72,000/- (12,000 x 6

months).

Compensation for pain and suffering

11 It is pointed out that though an amount of ₹1,00,000/-

was claimed under this head, the Tribunal has granted an amount of

₹40,000/- only. In the light of the injuries sustained; the period of

hospitalization and the surgery/medical interventions undergone by 2025:KER:58797 MACA NO. 372 OF 2020

him, I find that an amount of ₹70,000/- under this head would be

just and reasonable.

Percentage of permanent disability

12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim

petitioner that as per Ext.A6 certificate, the Medical Board has

assessed the disability as 30%. The Tribunal without any

justification scaled down the disability to 10% which is an error

committed by the Tribunal, which needs to be rectified. On the

other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the second

respondent/insurer that taking into account the nature of injuries

sustained, the Tribunal was right in fixing the disability as 10%.

Therefore, no interference in the same is called for.

12.1. Ext.A6 certificate reads thus:

"This is to certify C.Jayakrishnan aged 52 years residing at Chandralayam (H), Thodupuzha (PO), Idukki, whose signature/thumb impression above has been examined the Medical Board today and we found that he/she is suffering from Uniting two part fracture of (R) humeral head and reduced dislocation of (R) 2025:KER:58797 MACA NO. 372 OF 2020

shoulder joint with implant insitu. United four part fracture of the (L) upper humerus and reduced shoulder dislocation.

We certify that he is a Locomotor/Handicapped and the resultant permanent disability is assessed to be 30% (Thirty percent) and comes under the category Mild.......................

A case of RTA sustained B/L shoulder injuries with proximal humerus fracture. Treated by reduction of the shoulder dislocation and ORIF of (R) upper humerus fracture and ORIF of upper humerus fracture (L) side.

Now patient developed post traumatic shoulder periarthritis with reduction of the most of the both shoulder.

                                                    (R)      (L)
                  Shoulder abduction                90°      70°
                  Internal rotation                  20       5°
                  External rotation                 20°      50°
                  Flexion                           45°      45°
                  Extension                          20      20°

Pain while lifting objects even of medium wt. Pain in (L) lateral position and difficulty in carrying out his daily activities of living."

The claim petitioner, being a marketing manager, might have to

travel considerably in connection with his employment. In such 2025:KER:58797 MACA NO. 372 OF 2020

circumstances, taking into account the nature of injuries sustained

and the disabilities caused, I find that the functional disability can

be fixed as 20%.

13. The impugned Award is modified to the following

extent:

Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in No. claimed Awarded by appeal (in ₹) Tribunal (in ₹) (in ₹)

1. Loss of earning 80,000/- 16,000/- 72,000/-

                                           (8,000 x 2)     (12,000 x 6)
 2.   Transport to         30,000/-         13,000/-         13,000/-
      hospital                                           (No Modification)
 3.   Extra                20,000/-         5,000/-          5,000/-
      nourishment                                        (No Modification)
 4.   Damage to             9,000/-          1,000/-         1,000/-
      clothing and                                       (No Modification)
      articles
 5.   Expenses            110430.25/-        2,423/-          2,423/-
      incurred for                                       (No Modification)
      treatment
 6.   Future               40,000/-         25,000/-         25,000/-
      treatment                                          (No Modification)
 7.   Exenses for          25,000/-          1,800/-          1,800/-
      bystander                                          (No Modification)
 8.   Pain and            1,00,000/-        40,000/-         70,000/-
      sufferings,
      discomforts and
      inconvenience
                                                         2025:KER:58797
MACA NO. 372 OF 2020





 9.    Continuing        4,00,000/-       1,24,800/-       3,74,400/-
       permanent                         (8,000x12x    (12,000 x12 x13x
       disability                        13x10/100)         20/100)
 10    Loss of future    2,10,000/-         Nil             Nil
       prospects                                       (No Modification)
      Total             10,24,430.25/-    2,29,023/-      5,64,623/-
                          limited to     rounded to
                         10,00,000/-     2,29,100/-

In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the

compensation by a further amount of ₹3,35,523/- (total

compensation = ₹5,64,623/- that is, ₹2,29,100/- granted by the

Tribunal plus ₹3,35,523/- 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 131 days delay in filing the appeal) and

proportionate costs. The second 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.