Kerala High Court
Vinodini vs Hameed on 12 August, 2025
2025:KER:60622
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 3449 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED21.01.2020 IN OPMV NO.522 OF 2017 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
VINODINI
AGED 52 YEARS
D/O. PRABHAKARAPILLAI, W/O. OMANAKUTTAN, KRISHNBHAVAN
HOUSE, KOTTAPADI P.O. CHOOLIPURAM DESOM, POOKKODU
VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 505.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ANWIN JOHN ANTONY
SRI.R.SANJAY SANKAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 HAMEED
S/O. SAITHUTTY, AYNIKKAL HOUSE, ARTHAT P.O.,
KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 521.
2 VAISAKH K.V.,
S/O. VIJAYAN, KALATHIL HOUSE, KOTTAPADY P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT
3 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
ORISON COMPLEX, KUNNAMKULAM, 680 503,
REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER.
BY ADV SMT.M.N.UMARANI
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 01.08.2025, THE COURT ON 12.08.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 3449 OF 2020
:2:
2025:KER:60622
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.522 of 2017 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda, has preferred this
appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the
tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by her in a motor
accident that occurred on 13.11.2016.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:-
On 11.03.2016, at about 12.00 p.m., while the petitioner
was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-46-G-4167
through Kottappadi-Thamburanpadi public road and when she
reached in front of Milan auditorium, another motorcycle bearing
registration No.KL-48-C-2878, ridden by the 2nd respondent
respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle
ridden by the petitioner. Due to the impact of the hit, the
petitioner was thrown onto the road causing serious injuries on
her.
3. The owner and rider of the motorcycle bearing registration
No.KL-48-C-2878 were arrayed as the 1st and 2nd respondents
respectively, whereas, the insurer was arrayed as the 3rd
respondent. 1st and 2nd respondents were set ex parte. The 3rd
respondent contested the petition by filing written statement
mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite
MACA NO. 3449 OF 2020
2025:KER:60622
admitting insurance coverage for the motorcycle involved in the
accident.
4. During trial, the documents produced from the side of the
petitioner were marked as Exts. A1 to A15. The copy of the
insurance policy produced from the side of the respondent was
marked as Ext.B1.
5. After trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the
accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of
motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-48-C-2878 by the 2nd
respondent, and being the insurer, the 3rd respondent was held
liable to pay the compensation. The compensation was quantified
at Rs.95,900/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the
date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. Dissatisfied
with the compensation awarded by the tribunal, the petitioner has
come up with this appeal.
6. I heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads,
particularly under the head of permanent disability is too meager
and not sufficient to compensate the actual loss and damages
incurred by the petitioner due to the accident. The learned counsel
further submitted that the tribunal erred in scaling down the
MACA NO. 3449 OF 2020
2025:KER:60622
percentage of permanent disability noted by the Doctor without
assigning any convincing reason. Per contra, the learned counsel
for the respondent, the insurance company, would submit that the
compensation awarded by the tribunal under each and every head
is just, fair, reasonable, and adequate, and hence, no interference
is warranted.
8. From the rival contentions raised, it is discernible that the
main dispute that revolves around this appeal is with respect to
the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. A perusal
of the impugned award reveals that for the purpose of determining
the compensation under the head of permanent disability and loss
of earnings, the tribunal assessed the income of the petitioner at
Rs.10,000/-. In the petition, it was averred that the petitioner was
a tailor by profession and she was earning a monthly income of
Rs. 20,000/- at the time of the accident. In order to substantiate
her contention regarding her occupation and income, a pass book
issued from Kerala Tailoring Workers' Welfare Fund Board was
produced and marked in evidence as Ext.A12. Moreover, it is not
prudent to expect that a lady who is doing tailoring work from her
home could produce convincing documentary evidence regarding
her income. Therefore, Therefore, considering the nature of her
occupation and the year of accident, I am of the view that the
MACA NO. 3449 OF 2020
2025:KER:60622
income of the petitioner can be reasonably fixed at Rs.14,000/-.
9. In order to prove that the petitioner had suffered permanent
disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident, a disability
certificate issued by a Doctor is marked in evidence as Ext.A7. A
perusal of the disability certificate shows that the petitioner
suffered a permanent disability of 12% due to the injuries
sustained in the accident. However, the tribunal scaled down the
percentage of disability to 3% for the purpose of determining
compensation under the head of permanent disability. Anyhow, no
convincing reason was assigned by the tribunal for scaling down
the percentage of permanent disability assessed by the Doctor. I
am not oblivious of the fact that Ext.A7 is a disability certificate
issued by a Private Doctor. However, if the tribunal had any doubt
regarding the percentage of disability assessed by the Doctor, the
course open to it was to refer the petitioner for reassessment of
the percentage of disability by a medical board instead of scaling
down the same without assigning any convincing reason. As
evident from the medical records, the petitioner had suffered the
followed injuries in the accident;(a) soft tissue loss anterior ankle
(b) avulsion with distally based flap heel (c) hematoma left knee
Given the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, I am
of the view that a permanent disability of 7% can be reasonably
MACA NO. 3449 OF 2020
2025:KER:60622
taken for the purpose of determining compensation. The petitioner
was aged 54 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, in view
of the decision laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)], the multiplier to be
reckoned is 11. Resultantly, the petitioner is found entitled to get
an amount of Rs.1,29,360/- (Rs.14,000/- x 12 x 11 x 7/100) as
compensation under the head of permanent disability. Already an
amount of Rs.39,600/- has been awarded by the tribunal under
the said head. After deducting the said amount, the petitioner is
found entitled to get an amount of Rs.89,760/- (Rupees Eighty
nine thousand seven hundred and sixty only) as additional
compensation under the head of permanent disability.
10. Consequent to the revision in the monthly income,
corresponding enhancement must be made to the compensation
awarded under the head of loss of earnings. The tribunal awarded
loss of earnings only for a period of two months. Considering the
nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, I am of the view
that she would have been prevented from doing any work or
earnings income at least for a period of four months. Hence, the
petitioner is found entitled to get an amount of Rs.56,000/-
(Rs.14,000/-x 4) as compensation under the head of loss of
earnings. Already an amount of Rs. 20,000/- has been awarded by
MACA NO. 3449 OF 2020
2025:KER:60622
the tribunal under the said head. After deducting the said amount,
the petitioner is found entitled to get an additional compensation
of Rs.36,000/- (Rupees Thirty six thousand only) under the head
of loss of earnings.
11. Similarly, the nature of the injuries sustained by the
petitioner speaks for itself regarding the pain and sufferings
endured by her due to the accident. Already an amount of
Rs.15,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal under the said
head. The same appears to be on the lower side. Considering the
nature of the injuries and the treatment procedures underwent by
the petitioner, I am of the view that she is entitled to get an
additional compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand
only) under the head of pain and sufferings as well.
12. The hardships and inconveniences met by the petitioner
due to the injuries sustained in the accident can not be overlooked
while awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities
and enjoyment of life. Considering the days of inpatient treatment
underwent by the petitioner and given the nature of injuries
sustained by her, I am of the view that an amount of Rs.38,000/-
has to be awarded as compensation under the head of loss of
amenities and enjoyment of life. Already an amount of Rs.8,000/-
has been awarded by the tribunal under the head of loss of
MACA NO. 3449 OF 2020
2025:KER:60622
amenities and enjoyment of life. After deducting the said amount,
the petitioner is found entitled to get an additional compensation
of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) under the said
head.
13. The compensation awarded by the tribunal under other
heads appears to be reasonable and justifiable, and warrants no
interference. Hence, an amount of Rs. 1,80,760/- (Rs.89,760/-
+ Rs.36,000/- + Rs.25,000/- + Rs.30,000/-) has to be added
towards the total compensation awarded by the tribunal.
In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings,
the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further
amount of Rs.1,80,760/- (Rupees One lakh eighty thousand seven
hundred and sixty only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of claim
petition till the date of deposit. The respondent insurance
company is ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation with
interest before the tribunal with proportionate costs, within a
period of three months from the date of this judgment.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
