Kerala High Court

Antony N.V vs George @ Joy on 11 August, 2025

M.A.C.A. No.395 of 2020

                                            1


                                                        2025:KER:59976
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                         PRESENT

                      THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA

       MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1947

                               MACA NO. 395 OF 2020

           AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 02.08.2019 IN OP(MV)NO.1287 OF

2016       ON   THE    FILE   OF   THE    MOTOR    ACCIDENTS   CLAIMS   TRIBUNAL,

PERUMBAVOOR.

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

                ANTONY N.V.,
                AGED 39 YEARS,
                S/O. VARGHESE, NAMBIATTUKUDY HOUSE, EDAVOOR P.O.,
                KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.


                BY ADV SHRI.A.N.SANTHOSH


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:

       1        GEORGE @ JOY,
                S/O. VAREED @ VARGHESE, 4/203, PEECHANATTU HOUSE,
                THURAVOOR P.O., ANGAMALY,
                ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 572.

       2        THE MANAGER,
                UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
                BRANCH OFFICE, K.G. TOWERS, THRISSUR ROAD,
                ANGAMALY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 572.


                BY ADV SHRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH


        THIS     MOTOR    ACCIDENT       CLAIMS    APPEAL   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
HEARING ON 11.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 M.A.C.A. No.395 of 2020

                                          2


                                                                   2025:KER:59976


                                 C.S.SUDHA, J.
                 ----------------------------------------------------
                           M.A.C.A. No.395 of 2020
                 ----------------------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 11th 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.1287/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

Perumbavoor (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation

granted by Award dated 02/08/2019. The respondents herein are the

first and second respondents respectively 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 10/08/2016 at

about 10:30 a.m., while he was driving Omni van bearing registration

no. KL-43/2577 through Kalady-Angamaly MC road and when he

reached the place by name Vengoor double palam, car bearing

registration No.KL-42/D-9008 driven by the first respondent in a rash

2025:KER:59976 and negligent manner rammed his van, due to which it lost control and

hit a lorry bearing registration No.KL-08/AX-9272, as a result of which

he sustained grievous injuries. An amount of ₹10,00,000/- was

claimed as compensation under various heads.

3. Additional respondents 4 & 5, the driver and the

registered owner of the lorry respectively remained ex parte.

4. The first respondent/owner-cum-driver filed written

statement denying negligence on his part.

5. The second respondent/insurer filed written statement

admitting the policy but denying negligence on the part of the first

respondent/driver of the offending car.

6. The third respondent/insurer of lorry filed written

statement admitting the policy of the lorry.

7. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced

by the claim petitioner. Exts.A1 to A10 were marked on the side of the

claim petitioner. RW1 and RW2 were examined and Exts.B1 and B2,

were adduced by the respondents. Ext.C1 disability certificate issued

from Government Medical College Hospital, Ernakulam was also

marked.

2025:KER:59976

8. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and

documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence

on the part of the first respondent/driver of the offending car resulting

in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹5,27,890/- 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,

the claim petitioner has come up in appeal.

9. 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.

10. Heard both sides.

11. 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 Tribunal went wrong in fixing the notional income of the claim

petitioner at ₹9,500/-, when materials were brought on record to show

that he had license to drive heavy vehicles also. Per contra, it is

submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer that

2025:KER:59976 the amount that has been fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable

and that it does not call for any modification or enhancement.

11.1. Going by the averments in the claim petition, the

claim petitioner was earning ₹12,000/- per month. In the light of

Ext.A10 driving license, I find that the amount as claimed by him, that

is, ₹12,000/- per month can be awarded. Hence, the monthly income is

fixed at ₹12,000/-.

Loss of earnings

12. The materials on record show that the claim

petitioner sustained the following injuries:

"Open knee with osteochondral fracture lateral femoral condyle"

He was hospitalized for a period of 26 days. Hence, in all probability,

he might have been unable to work for a period of 10 months.

Therefore, he would be entitled to an amount of ₹12,000/- x 10 months

= ₹1,20,000/-.

Pain and suffering

13. In the light of the nature of injuries, which include

fractures ; 2 major surgeries and the period of hospitalization of 26

days, I find that an amount of ₹1,00,000/- would be just and

2025:KER:59976 reasonable.

Loss of amenities

14. An amount of ₹2,00,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal

granted an amount of ₹70,000/-. In the facts and circumstances of the

case, taking into account the injuries and disabilities, I find that an

amount of ₹90,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable.

15. 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 ₹1,44,000/- ₹66,500/- ₹1,20,000/-

(₹12,000/- x 10 months) 2 Partial loss of -- -- --

           income                                           (No modification)
    3      Transport to         ₹6,000/-        ₹3,500/-        ₹3,500/-
           hospital                                         (No modification)
    4      Extra                ₹30,000/-       ₹13,000/-       ₹13,000/-
           nourishment                                      (No modification)
    5      Payment to           ₹60,000/-       ₹13,000/-       ₹13,000/-
           bystander                                        (No modification)

    6      Damage to            ₹1,800/-        ₹1,000/-        ₹1,000/-
           clothes                                          (No modification)
    7      Medical              ₹82,500/-       ₹84,890/-       ₹84,890/-
           Expenses                                         (No modification)





                                                           2025:KER:59976
   8     Pain and           ₹1,00,000/-     ₹80,000/-        ₹1,00,000/-
         suffering

    9    Loss of            ₹2,00,000/-     ₹70,000/-         ₹90,000/-
         amenities etc.
   10    Permanent          ₹8,00,000/-    ₹1,71,000/-       ₹2,16,000/-
         disability                                      (₹12,000/x12x15x10%)

   11    Future treatment   ₹1,00,000/-     ₹15,000/-         ₹15,000/-
                                                          (No modification)
   12    Permanent               --         ₹10,000/-         ₹10,000/-
         disfiguration                                    (No modification)

   13    Expectation of     ₹3,00,000/-        --               --
         life                                             (No modification)
         Total              ₹18,24,300/-   ₹5,27,890/-       ₹6,66,390/-
                             limited to
                            ₹10,00,000/-

In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the

compensation by a further amount of ₹1,38,500/- (total compensation =

₹6,66,390/-, that is, ₹5,27,890/- granted by the Tribunal + ₹1,38,500/-

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 30 days

delay in filing the appeal) and proportionate costs. The second

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

2025:KER:59976 amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claim petitioner

at the earliest in accordance with law after making deductions, if any.

The liberty given by the Tribunal to the second respondent/insurer to