Kerala High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Venugopalan Nair on 13 August, 2025
2025:KER:60988
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. 504 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 11.10.2019 IN OPMV NO.94 OF
2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
TRIVANDRUM BRANCH, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL-
CLAIMS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, VISHNU BUILDING,
K.P.VALLON ROAD, KADAVANTHRA P.O., KOCHI-682020.
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
VENUGOPALAN NAIR,
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O.JANARDHANAN PILLAI, VENU VILASAM,
NEAR LMS HOSPITAL, PERUMPUZHA P.O., ELAMPALLOOR,
KUNDARA, KOLLAM-691504.
BY ADV SRI.M.RAJESH
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:60988
MACA NO. 504 OF 2020
2
C.S.SUDHA, J.
---------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.504 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 third respondent/insurer in O.P.
(MV) No.94/2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Kollam, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of
compensation granted by Award dated 11/10/2019. The sole
respondent herein is the claim petitioner 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 14/03/2009 while
he was pillion riding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KL 2G
4325 from the place by name Irumbanagad to Kadappakkada near
Ezhukone, car bearing registration No.KL 02 AC 1223 driven by
the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him
2025:KER:60988
MACA NO. 504 OF 2020
down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. A sum of
₹4,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.
3. The first respondent/owner and the second
respondent/driver of the offending vehicle 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 age, occupation and income 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 A14 and Ext.X1 were marked on the side of
the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was produced 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 resulting in the incident and hence
2025:KER:60988
MACA NO. 504 OF 2020
awarded an amount of ₹10,98,000/- together with interest @ 8%
per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with
proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the third
respondent/insurer 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 third respondent/insurer -
Notional income
It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the third
respondent/insurer that the amount of ₹15,000/- fixed by the
Tribunal as the notional income in the absence of any evidence to
show the avocation or income of the claim petitioner is quite high
and hence the same needs to be appropriately reduced. Per contra,
it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that
2025:KER:60988
MACA NO. 504 OF 2020
being a collection agent of the HDFC Bank, the latter was earning
an amount of ₹25,000/- and therefore the Tribunal fixing the
amount at ₹15,000/- itself is quite low and that it does not call for
any interference by this Court. My attention is also drawn to
Ext.A11 FIR where the occupation of the claim petitioner is
referred to.
9.1. It is true that in Ext.A11 FIR, it is stated that he is a
collection agent of the bank. However, this does not establish or
substantiate his case that he was earning ₹25,000/- per month. The
learned counsel for the claim petitioner submitted that he may be
permitted to produce documents to establish the income. The
documents, if any, to establish the case ought to have been
produced before the Tribunal and not before the appellate court at
this late stage. There are no materials on record to show that the
claim petitioner was earning an amount of ₹25,000/- per month.
Going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236, the
2025:KER:60988
MACA NO. 504 OF 2020
income of even a coolie in the year 2009 is liable to be fixed at
₹7,000/- per month. As the occupation of the claim petitioner has
not been disputed, I find that an amount of ₹10,000/- can be fixed
as his notional income in the absence of any better evidence to
show the income of the claim petitioner. To that extent, the Award
shall stand modified.
10. The impugned Award is modified to the following
extent:
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in
No. claimed Awarded by appeal
(in ₹) Tribunal (in (in ₹)
₹)
1. Loss of earnings 50,000/- 1,20,000/- 80,000/-
(15,000x 8) (10,000x 8)
2. Compensation for Nil Nil Nil
anticipated treatment (No Modification)
3. Transport to hospital 15,000/- 12,000/- 12,000/-
(No Modification)
4. Extra nourishment 5,000/- 5,000/- 5,000/-
(No Modification)
5. Damages to clothing 1,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/-
and articles (No Modification)
6. Medicine, medical 1,29,000/- 1,20,000/- 1,20,000/-
expenses, bystander (No Modification)
expenses
2025:KER:60988
MACA NO. 504 OF 2020
7. Compensation for 50,000/- 65,000/- 65,000/-
pain and suffering (No Modification)
Compensation for 1,50,000/- 6,75,000/- 4,50,000/-
continuing or (15,000x12x (10,000x12x
permanent disability 15x25/100) 15x25/100)
8. Compensation for 50,000/- 80,000/- 80,000/-
loss of amenities in (No Modification)
life
9. Compensation for Nil 20,000/- 20,000/-
future treatment (No Modification)
Total 4,00,000/- 10,98,000/- 8,33,000/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by deducting the
compensation awarded by an amount of ₹2,65,000/- (total
compensation = ₹8,33,000/-, that is, ₹10,98,000/- granted by the
Tribunal minus ₹2,65,000/- deducted in appeal).
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
C.S. SUDHA
JUDGE
NP
