Kerala High Court
Kumaran K vs The Manager on 13 August, 2025
1
MACA No.359 of 2021
2025:KER:60909
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 359 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2020 IN O.P.(MV) NO.697 OF
2018 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
KUMARAN K.
AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. KUTTAN K,
ANANTHOORPALLA HOUSE, KADALMADU,
THOMATTUCHAL, WAYANAD DISTRICT - 673 581
BY ADV.
SMT.CELINE JOSEPH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.2:
THE MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,
BRANCH OFFICE-KALPEETA, PINANGODE ROAD
JUNCTION, MAIN ROAD, KALPETTA 673 121
BY ADV.
SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 13.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2
MACA No.359 of 2021
2025:KER:60909
JUDGMENT
The appellant has filed the captioned appeal aggrieved by
the award dated 17.08.2020 of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Wayanad, in OP(MV) No.697 of 2018. The appellant
approached the Tribunal, pointing out that he was working as a
school bus driver, and on 17.07.2018, he met with an accident,
as is clear from Ext.A1 - First Information Report. The Tribunal,
by the impugned award, has fixed the salary of the appellant
notionally at Rs.10,000/- per month. Similarly, the appellant was
also extended an award towards loss of earnings for a period of
four months.
2. It is the afore two determinations carried out by the
Tribunal that is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
3. I have heard Smt.Celine Joseph, the learned counsel
for the appellant and Smt.Rinny Stephen Chamaparampil, the
learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company.
4. The first ground of challenge, as noticed earlier, is
with reference to the fixation of the notional income at
Rs.10,000/-. In the case at hand, the Tribunal has so fixed the
notional income essentially because no document was produced
2025:KER:60909
by the appellant to prove the actual income. At the same time, a
reading of the First Information Report along with the driving
licence, would show that the appellant was working as a school
bus driver at the time of the accident. When that be so, the
principles laid down by the Apex Court in Manusha Sreekumar
and others v. United India Insurance Company Limited.
[(2022) 17 SCC 321] with reference to the application of the
provisions of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Payment of Fair
Wages Act, 1971, would also apply to the facts of the case at
hand. As per the afore judgment, the Apex Court had found that
a driver is a "skilled worker" and hence was entitled for the
fixation of a minimum income of Rs.15,600/- per month
notionally. In the light of the afore, since there is no dispute with
reference to the job of the appellant as a driver, as is made clear
from Ext.A1 - First Information Report, the notional fixation of
income has to be enhanced to Rs.15,600/- per month.
5. Though, the learned counsel for the appellant would
also contend that the Tribunal ought to have granted more
amounts towards loss of earnings, I notice that the appellant was
admittedly in hospital only for a period of 13 days, and with
2025:KER:60909
reference to the afore period of hospitalisation as well as
subsequent treatment, the award of loss of earnings towards four
months cannot be faulted.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would also
contend that the fixation of the compensation towards loss of
amenities at Rs.10,000/- when the appellant claimed
Rs.25,000/- was also illegal and arbitrary. However, I notice that
with reference to the functional disability, as fixed by the learned
Tribunal at 8%, even on the face of Ext.C1 certificate, as per
which the disability was quantified at 5%, the award of
Rs.10,000/- cannot be said to be incorrect or arbitrary.
7. Resultantly, I am of the opinion that the appellant is
entitled for partial relief in this appeal, and the appellant would
be entitled for compensation as under;
Amount Total
Head of claim Amount Modified
Sl. awarded by compen-
Compensation claimed in Appeal
No. MACT (in sation
for (in Rs.) (in Rs.)
Rs.) (in Rs.)
Part I
Loss of 62,400
a 1,20,000 40,000 22,400
earnings (15,600x4)
Partial loss of
b Nil Nil ----- Nil
earning
Transport to
c 2,000 2,000 ----- 2,000
hospital
2025:KER:60909
Extra
d 5,000 5,000 ----- 5,000
nourishment
Damage to
e clothing and 2,000 2,000 ----- 2,000
articles
Others:
(i) Compens-
ation for
f 50,000 8,943 ----- 8,943
treatment
and
medicine
(ii) Bystander's
10,000 3,900 ----- 3,900
expenses
Part II
Compensation
g for pain and 25,000 40,000 ----- 40,000
suffering
Compensation
for the loss of
h 25,000 10,000 ----- 10,000
amenities in
life
Compensation
i for mental 50,000 Nil ----- Nil
shock
Compensation
for loss of
j 25,000 Nil ----- Nil
expectation of
life
Compensation
for
k 50,000 Nil ----- Nil
inconvenience,
hardship etc.
Compensation
for continuing
l 25,000 Nil ----- Nil
permanent
disability
2025:KER:60909
1,94,688
Compensation
(15,600x
m for loss of 25,000 1,24,800 69,888
12x13x
earning power
8%)
Compensation
n for future 50,000 Nil ----- Nil
treatment
Total 2,50,000 2,36,700 92,288 3,28,931
Resultantly, the appeal would stand partially allowed and
the impugned award is modified, entitling the claimant to get a
total compensation of Rs.92,288/- (Rupees ninety two thousand
two hundred and eighty eight only), after deducting the amount
already awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 8% per annum
from the date of the petition till realisation and proportionate
costs.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
anm
