Kerala High Court

Madhusoodanan vs Ali on 13 August, 2025

                                                2025:KER:60987

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA

 WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1947

                      MACA NO. 497 OF 2020

        AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 05.02.2019 IN OPMV NO.280 OF

2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

           MADHUSOODANAN
           AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.SELVARAJ,
           CHAKKALA HOUSE, VETTICHIRA, PULATHALA,
           MALAPPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT M.PUTHUR,
           KAMBRATHUCHALLA, KOLLENGODE, CHITTUR TALUK,
           PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 506

           BY ADV SRI.K.P.BALAGOPAL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1      ALI
           AGE NOT KNOWN, S/O. HAMZA, PUTHENTHOTTINGAL VEEDU,
           KOTTAKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 503

    2      MOITHEEN,
           AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, CHEERAKULANGARA
           VEEDU, PERUMBIL PEEDIKA, CHETTIYAMKIRUR,
           KUTTIPALAM, MALAPPURAM-676 501

    3      ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, SUBRAMANIAM
           BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD,
           ANNASALAI, CHENNAI-60002

           BY ADV SRI.VPK.PANICKER
     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 13.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
                                                              2025:KER:60987
MACA NO. 497 OF 2020

                                      2



                             C.S.SUDHA, J.
             ----------------------------------------------------
                       M.A.C.A. No.497 of 2020
             ----------------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 13th 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.280/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

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

granted by Award dated 05/02/2019. The respondents herein are

respondents 1 to 3 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 04/05/2016 at

about 06:00 p.m., while he was pillion riding on a motorcycle

through the public road, car bearing registration no.KL-65E-451

driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner

knocked him down, as a result of which he sustained grievous 2025:KER:60987 MACA NO. 497 OF 2020

injuries. A sum of ₹8,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under

various heads.

3. The first respondent/owner and the second

respondent/driver remained ex parte.

4. The third 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 second respondent.

The income and occupation of the claim petitioner were disputed. It

was also contended that the compensation claimed was quite

excessive.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by

either side. Exts.A1 to A13 series were marked on the side of the

claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was adduced by the

third respondent/insurer.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary

evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part

of the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle resulting in 2025:KER:60987 MACA NO. 497 OF 2020

the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹1,30,590/- together

with 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. 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 skilled tile worker, was earning ₹15,000/- per

month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹5,000/-

which is quite low going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v.

Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13

SCC 236.

2025:KER:60987 MACA NO. 497 OF 2020

9.1. There are no materials on record to show the income of

the claim petitioner. However, in the light of the dictum in

Ramachandrappa (Supra), the notional income of the claim

petitioner can be fixed as ₹10,500/- per month.

Treatment expenses

10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim

petitioner that along with an application dated 28/12/2018,

additional documents had been produced to prove the expenses

incurred towards treatment. However, this application was never

considered by the Tribunal and the documents were not admitted in

evidence or the amounts awarded. Hence, he submits that the

amounts as evidenced by the said bills may also be awarded. It is

submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer

that bills to the extent of ₹67,180/- is not disputed and that the said

amount can be awarded.

10.1. In the light of the submissions made by both sides, I

find that the additional bills produced as per the unnumbered I.A. 2025:KER:60987 MACA NO. 497 OF 2020

dated 28/12/2018 shall stand partially allowed as per which the

claim petitioner is entitled to an additional amount of ₹67,180/-.

Compensation for pain and suffering

11. The materials on record show that following injuries

were sustained by the claim petitioner:

"1) fracture shaft of right femur

2) sub trochanteric fracture right hip

3) fracture talus

4) contusion right ankle"

Taking into account the nature of injuries which include

multiple fractures, I find that an amount of ₹50,000/- under this

head would be just and reasonable.

Compensation for loss of amenities in life

12. In the light of the nature of injuries sustained which

include fractures; the period of hospitalization of 4 days and the

surgeries that the claim petitioner had to undergo, I find that an

amount of ₹60,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable.

13. The impugned Award is modified to the following 2025:KER:60987 MACA NO. 497 OF 2020

extent:

Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in No. claimed Awarded appeal (in ₹) by Tribunal (in ₹) (in ₹)

1. Transportation to 20,000/- 3,000/- 3,000/-

       hospital                                          (No Modification)
 2.    Damage to             3,000/-        1,000/-          1,000/-
       clothing and                                      (No Modification)
       articles
 3.    Extra nourishment    20,000/-        2,000/-          2,000/-
                                                         (No Modification)
 4.    Treatment            1,80,000/-       8,190/-         75,370/-
       expenses                                          (8,190 + 67,180)
 5.    Compensation for     1,00,000/-      20,000/-         50,000/-
       pain and suffering
 6.    Compensation for     2,00,000/-      86,400/-         1,81,440/-
       loss of future                      (5,000x12      (10,500 x 12 x
       earning power                       x18x8/100)       18 x 8/100)
 7.    Compensation for     1,00,000/-      10,000/-         60,000/-
       loss of amenities
       and enjoyment in
       life
      Total                                1,30,590/-       3,72,810/-

In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the

compensation by a further amount of ₹2,42,220/- (total

compensation = ₹3,72,810/- that is, ₹1,30,590/- granted by the 2025:KER:60987 MACA NO. 497 OF 2020

Tribunal plus ₹2,42,220/- 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 218 days delay in filing the appeal) and

proportionate costs. The third 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.