Kerala High Court
Sreerag vs Ramachandran on 11 August, 2025
2025:KER:60259
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. 486 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 29.05.2019 IN OPMV NO.399 OF
2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SREERAG
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O.SUDHEER BABU, KOLUMN HOUSE,
PALIYATHURUTHU KARA, MOOTHAKUNNAM VILLAGE.
SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH
SRI.K.SHAJU VARGHESE
SRI.RIBIN BENNY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 RAMACHANDRAN
S/O.KRISHNAN, MARAPARAMBU HOUSE,
DEVASWOMPADOM KARA, VARAPPUZHA - 683 517.
2 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JOSE TRUST BUILDING,
JOSE JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER - 682 016.
BY ADV SRI.T.J.LAKSHMANAN IYER
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 11.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:60259
MACA NO. 486 OF 2020
2
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.486 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th 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.399/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
North Paravur, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the Award dated
29/05/2019. 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 18/04/2017 at
about 07:30 a.m., while he was riding motorcycle bearing
registration no.KL-08/AN-3350 along the Paravur-Kodungalloor
road, car bearing registration no.KL-42/L-6684 driven by the first
respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down, as a
result of which he sustained grievous injuries. A sum of
2025:KER:60259
MACA NO. 486 OF 2020
₹30,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.
3. The first respondent/owner cum driver of the offending
vehicle 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.
The age, occupation, income etc., of the claim petitioner were
disputed. It was also contended that the compensation claimed was
quite excessive.
5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to
A9 series were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No
evidence was adduced by the second respondent/insurer.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found
contributory negligence on the part of the claim petitioner and the
first respondent/driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the
incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹5,20,000/- together with
2025:KER:60259
MACA NO. 486 OF 2020
interest @ 9% 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. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim
petitioner that the testimony of the claim petitioner examined as
PW1, will show that it was the first respondent/driver who was
negligent and therefore the Tribunal went wrong in finding
contributory negligence on the part of the claim petitioner and the
first respondent/driver and fixing the liability as 50 : 50. Per contra,
it is submitted by the learned counsel for the second
respondent/insurer that based on the materials on record, the
Tribunal was right in arriving at such a conclusion and so there is
no infirmity in the same calling for an interference by this Court.
2025:KER:60259
MACA NO. 486 OF 2020
9.1. As per Ext.A3 final report, the incident was only a
'motor occurrence'. The investigating officer on completion of the
investigation has no case that there was any negligence on the part
of the first respondent/driver. As per Ext.A3 final report, both the
claim petitioner as well as the first respondent were travelling from
north to south. The road at the place of occurrence is 5.27 meters
wide. The place of occurrence is 3.54 meters to the east of the
western road margin. According to the police, the claim petitioner
was riding his motorcycle behind the car driven by the first
respondent. When the vehicles reached the place of occurrence, the
motorcycle ridden by the claim petitioner accidentally rammed the
back of the car resulting in the accident. Going by the dictum in
New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal, 2011 (3)
KLT 648, the final report filed by the police is prima facie evidence
of negligence. However in this case, the report of the police is to
the effect that the incident was only a 'motor occurrence' and that
there was no negligence on the part of the first respondent/driver.
2025:KER:60259
MACA NO. 486 OF 2020
Looking into the facts and circumstances and on the basis of the
materials on record, the Tribunal found that the claim petitioner was
equally responsible and had equally contributed to the accident and
hence fixed his liability as 50%. Apart from the testimony of PW1,
there is no other material(s) on record to substantiate the case put
forward by the claim petitioner that the accident occurred when the
first respondent abruptly swerved the car to the left, that is, to the
western side, as a result of which his motorcycle hit the car by
which he was thrown on to the ground and sustained grievous
injuries. No eyewitness has been examined in this case. Ext.A1 FIR
was registered on the basis of the FIS given by the father of the
claim petitioner. It is true that he was not an eyewitness in the case.
However, the first informant also does not have a case that it was
due to the rashness or negligence of the first respondent or, for that
matter, any other driver that the incident had occurred. On the other
hand, in the FIS also, it is stated that the motorcycle driven by his
son somehow dashed against the car which was proceeding in front
2025:KER:60259
MACA NO. 486 OF 2020
resulting in the accident. The testimony of PW1, who is none other
than the claim petitioner alone, is not sufficient to disprove the
findings of the investigating officer in Ext.A3 final report. In the
absence of any better evidence, I do not find any reasons to discard
or disbelieve the version or the opinion that has been given by the
investigating officer in the final report. That being so, I do not find
any infirmity in the Tribunal finding that the first respondent alone
is not negligent and that both the claim petitioner as well as the first
respondent were rash and negligent in driving resulting in the
accident.
10. 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 car mechanic, was earning ₹20,000/- per month.
However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹10,000/- only,
which is quite low going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v.
2025:KER:60259
MACA NO. 486 OF 2020
Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13
SCC 236, where the income of even a coolie in the year 2017 is
liable to be fixed at the rate ₹11,000/- per month.
10.1. Though the allegation was that the claim petitioner, a
car mechanic, was earning ₹20,000/- per month, no materials were
produced to substantiate the same. Going by the dictum in
Ramachandrappa (Supra), the income of a coolie in the year 2017 is
liable to be fixed at ₹11,000/- per month. Therefore, in the absence
of any better evidence, I find that the income can be fixed at
₹11,000/- per month.
Loss of earnings
11. The materials on record show that following injuries
were sustained by the claim petitioner:
"1) Head injury with extensive craniofacial fracture
with EDH.
2) avulsion of left eyeball"
The claim petitioner was hospitalized for a period of 7 days. Hence,
in these circumstances, in all probability, he might have been
2025:KER:60259
MACA NO. 486 OF 2020
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, ₹66,000/- (11,000 x 6 months).
Loss of amenities in life
12. Though an amount of ₹5,00,000/- was claimed under
this head, the Tribunal granted an amount of ₹90,000/- only, which
is also stated to be on the lower side. Due to the injury caused, the
claim petitioner has lost sight of his left eye. The claim petitioner
was only 19 years old and therefore I find that an amount of
₹1,25,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable.
Addition to be made towards future prospects
13. As the claim petitioner was 19 years old and as the
disability sustained is 30%, I find that 40% of his established
income is liable to be added towards future prospects while
computing compensation for permanent disability.
14. The impugned Award is modified to the following
2025:KER:60259
MACA NO. 486 OF 2020
extent:
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in
No. claimed Awarded by appeal
(in ₹) Tribunal (in ₹)
(in ₹)
1. Loss of earning 2,40,000/- 30,000/- 66,000/-
(10,000 x 3) (11,000 x 6)
2. Transportation 25,000/- 4,000/- 4,000/-
expenses (No Modification)
3. Bystander 2,00,000/- 3,500/- 3,500/-
expenses (No Modification)
4. Damage to 5,000/- 2,000/- 2,000/-
clothing and (No Modification)
articles
5. Medical 5,00,000/- 1,26,400/- 1,26,400/-
expenses (No Modification)
6. Extra 50,000/- 6,000/- 6,000/-
nourishment (No Modification)
7. Pain and 5,00,000/- 80,000/- 80,000/-
sufferings (No Modification)
8. Loss of 5,00,000/- 90,000/- 1,25,000/-
amenities
9. Compensation 10,00,000/- 6,48,000/- 9,97,920/-
for disability (10,000 x12 [(11,000+40%)
x18x30/100) x12x18x30/100]
10 Future 2,00,000/- Nil Nil
treatment (No Modification)
expenses
11 Compensation 1,00,000/- 50,000/- 50,000/-
for disfiguration (No Modification)
12 Loss of marital 5,00,000/- Nil Nil
prospects (No Modification)
2025:KER:60259
MACA NO. 486 OF 2020
13 Loss of earning 10,00,000/- Nil Nil
capacity (No Modification)
Total 48,20,000/- 10,39,900/- 14,60,820/-
Less limited to - 5,19,950/- - 7,30,410/-
contributory 30,00,000/- ------------------ ------------------
negligence 50% 5,19,950/- 7,30,410/-
rounded to
5,20,000/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹2,10,410/- (total
compensation = ₹7,30,410/- that is, ₹5,20,000/- granted by the
Tribunal plus ₹2,10,410/- 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 103 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.
2025:KER:60259
MACA NO. 486 OF 2020
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
NP
