Kerala High Court
Aouse K. V vs Ashiq P. K on 12 August, 2025
2025:KER:60700
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. 3454 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 18.10.2019 IN OPMV NO.865 OF 2017 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
AOUSE K. V.
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. MOYEEN BAPPU, VALIYATHODY HOUSE,
CHERUVAYOOR P. O., EDAVANNAPARA,
MALAPPURAM - 673 645.
BY ADV SHRI.K.VIDYASAGAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 ASHIQ P. K.
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O. ANVAR P. K., KURUKKANPURATH HOUSE,
KIZHUPARAMBA P. O., MALAPPURAM - 673 639.
2 ANWAR
S/O. ABDU SALEEM, PARAMBAN HOUSE, KIZHUPARAMBA P. O.,
MALAPPURAM - 673 639.
3 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
2ND FLOOR, M. K. TOWERS, MIDDLE HILL, MALAPPURAM - 676
505, REP. BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
BY ADV SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
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. 3454 OF 2020
:2:
2025:KER:60700
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.865 of 2017 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, has preferred this
appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the
tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor
accident that occurred on 15.05.2017 .
2. The facts of the case in brief is as follows:-
On 15.05.2017, at about 9.15 a.m., while the petitioner
was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-10-AD-5174
through Vazhakkad - Edavannappara public road and when he
reached at a place called Panikkarapuraya, another motorcycle
bearing registration No.KL-10-AA-2787, ridden by the 1st
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 him.
3. The rider and owner of the motorcycle bearing registration
No.KL-10-AA-2787 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
MACA NO. 3454 OF 2020
2025:KER:60700
mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite
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 A8. No evidence,
whatsoever, was produced from the side of the respondents.
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-10-AA-2787 by the 1st
respondent, and being the insurer, the 3rd respondent was held
liable to pay the compensation. The compensation was quantified
at Rs.2,12,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% 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 is
too meager and not sufficient to compensate the actual loss and
damages incurred by the petitioner due to the accident. Per
contra, the learned counsel for the respondent, the insurance
MACA NO. 3454 OF 2020
2025:KER:60700
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.11,500/-. Though in the petition, it was
averred that the petitioner was working as a Clerical Assistant in
SCOLE Kerala and he was earning a monthly income of
Rs.23,000/- at the time of the accident, no evidence, whatsoever,
was produced from the petitioner's side to substantiate his
contention regarding his occupation and income. Hence, I find no
reason to interfere in the assessment of income made by the
tribunal, especially when the same is more than the income that
could be assessed in accordance with the guidelines laid down in
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236]. Now, while
coming to the question whether any interference is required in the
MACA NO. 3454 OF 2020
2025:KER:60700
compensation awarded by the tribunal under the head of
permanent disability, it is to be noted that the permanent
disability noted by a competent medical board is accepted as such
by the tribunal for awarding compensation under the head of
permanent disability. Therefore, no interference is warranted as
far as the compensation awarded under the head of permanent
disability is concerned.
9. From the medical evidence adduced in this case, it is
established that the petitioner sustained the following injuries in
the accident; a) fracture shaft of 4th and 5th meta carpel and
fracture of PP ring and little finger. He was treated by application
of POP. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained, and the
treatment procedures underwent by the petitioner, I am of the
view that he would have been prevented from doing any work or
earning income at least for a period of six months. Hence, the
petitioner is found entitled to get an amount of Rs.69,000/-
(Rs.11,500/- x 6). Already an amount of Rs.34,500/- has been
awarded by the tribunal under the said head. After deducting the
said amount, the petitioner is found entitled to get an additional
compensation of Rs.34,500/- (Rupees Thirty for thousand five
hundred only) under the head of loss of earnings.
MACA NO. 3454 OF 2020
2025:KER:60700
10. Similarly, the nature of the injuries sustained by the
petitioner speaks for itself regarding the pain and sufferings
endured by him due to the accident. Already an amount of
Rs.25,000/- 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 he is entitled to
get an additional compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty
thousand only) under the head of pain and sufferings as well.
11. A perusal of the award further reveals that the tribunal
omitted to award any amount under the head of loss of amenities
and enjoyment in life. The hardships and inconveniences met by
the petitioner due to the injuries sustained in the accident could
not be overlooked while awarding compensation under the head
of loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. Given the nature of
injuries sustained by him, I am of the view that an amount of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) has to be
awarded as compensation under the head of loss of amenities and
enjoyment of life.
12. The compensation awarded by the tribunal under other
heads appears to be reasonable and justifiable, and hence, no
MACA NO. 3454 OF 2020
2025:KER:60700
interference is warranted. Hence, an amount of Rs.79,500/-
(Rs.34,500/- + Rs.20,000/- + Rs.25,000/-) 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.79,500/- (Rupees Seventy Nine Thousand five
hundred 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 and
proportionate costs before the tribunal within a period of three
months from the date of this judgment.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
