Kerala High Court
T.Manoj vs The New India Assurance Co Ltd on 19 August, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.634 of 2020
1
2025:KER:62650
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 634 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 03.07.2019 IN OPMV NO.2023 OF
2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
T.MANOJ
AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O.THANKAPPAN, KARICHIRA VEETTIL,
POOCHAKKAL P O, CHERTHALA,
NOW RESIDING AT NIKARTHIL HOUSE,
SREEDHARAN ROAD, KADEBHAGOM,
PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-682006.
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAHUL SASI
SMT.NEETHU PREM
RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS,
OPPOSITE MAHARAJAS COLLEGE STADIUM,
ERNAKULAM, M.G. ROAD P.O,
COCHIN - 682011, REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED
OFFICER.
BY ADV SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 19.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.634 of 2020
2
2025:KER:62650
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.634 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th 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.2023/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the
amount of compensation granted by Award dated 30/07/2019.
The respondent herein is the third respondent in the petition. In
this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as
described in the original petition.
2. According to the claim petitioner, on
08/05/2016 at 02:30 p.m., while the petitioner was riding
motorcycle bearing registration no.KL.32-G-9210 through Aroor
- Arookkutty road and when he reached in front of Cherukattu
company, car bearing registration no.KL-42-K-662 driven by the
2025:KER:62650
second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him
down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries.
3. The first respondent-owner and the second
respondent-driver of the offending vehicle filed joint written
statement denying negligence on the part of the second
respondent. The averments in the petition regarding age,
occupation and income of the claim petitioner was disputed. The
compensation claimed under various heads was contended to be
exorbitant.
4. The third respondent-insurer filed written
statement admitting the policy but denying negligence on the part
of the second respondent. The averments in the petition regarding
age, occupation and income of the claim petitioner was disputed.
The compensation claimed under various heads was contended to
be exorbitant.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was
adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A17 and X1 were marked on
the side of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was
2025:KER:62650
produced by the respondents.
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 car resulting in the incident and hence awarded an
amount of ₹5,32,900/- 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 head is challenged by the claim petitioner-
Notional income
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim
petitioner that when Ext.A16 salary certificate has been produced
2025:KER:62650
to substantiate the claim regarding income, the Tribunal went
wrong in fixing the notional income at ₹12,000/-. The marking of
the document was never objected to, when the same was
attempted to be admitted and brought in evidence and therefore, at
a later point, the admissibility of the document cannot be
challenged. Reference is also made to the dictum in Neeraj
Dutta v. State (Government of N.C.T. of Delhi) 2022 (7) KHC
647 in support of the argument that the contents of the document
will also stand proved once it is admitted in evidence. It is
submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent-insurer
that the notional income can be fixed by this court based on
Ext.A16. Hence, the notional income of the claim petitioner is
fixed at ₹18,000/- per month.
Loss of earnings
10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
claim petitioner that the latter was on leave from 08/05/2016 to
10/03/2017. However, the Tribunal has granted compensation for
only a period of 8 months, which is quite low.
2025:KER:62650
10.1. The materials on record show that he was on
leave form 08/05/2016 to 10/03/2017. Therefore, loss of earnings
for a period of 10 months can be granted, that is, ₹18,000/- x 10 =
₹1,80,000/-
11. The impugned Award is modified to the
following extent:
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in
No. claimed Awarded by appeal
Tribunal
(in ₹) (in ₹) (in ₹)
1. Transport to 10,000/- 10,000/- 10,000/-
hospital and (No modification)
back to home
2. Extra 15,000/- 20,000/- 20,000/-
nourishment (No modification)
3. Damage to 7,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/-
clothes and (No modification)
articles
4. Bystander 7,500/- 9,900/- 9,900/-
expenses (No modification)
expenses (No modification)
6. Compensation 2,00,000/- 80,000/- 80,000/-
for pain and (No modification)
sufferings
7. Compensation 4,00,000/- 2,16,000/- 3,24,000/-
for continuing or (18,000/- 12 x 15 x
permanent 10%)
disability
2025:KER:62650
8. Compensation for 2,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/-
loss of amenities (No modification)
and comforts
expenses (No modification)
for loss of (No modification)
earning power
for disfiguration (No modification)
12. Loss of earning 1,08,000/- 96,000/- 1,80,000/-
(18,000/- x 10)
Total 14,57,500/- 5,32,900/- 7,24,900/-
claim limited to
10,00,000/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹1,92,000/- (total
compensation = ₹7,24,900/- that is, ₹5,32,900/- granted by the
Tribunal + ₹1,92,000/- 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 138 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
2025:KER:62650
the claim petitioner at the earliest in accordance with law after
making deductions, if any.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
Jms
