Kerala High Court
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Anoop Mohan on 19 August, 2025
M.A.C.A. No.698 of 2020
1
2025:KER:62585
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. 698 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 15.06.2019 IN OP(MV)NO.1960 OF
2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM.
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.3:
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
KOTTAKKAL ARYA VAIDYA SALA BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, KOCHI - 682 316,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER.
BY ADV SHRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
ANOOP MOHAN,
S/O.MOHANAN, VELITHANATHU HOUSE,
VELIYANADU P.O., ARAKUNNAM,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 319.
BY ADVS.
SMT.K.J.ARSHA
SHRI.K.K.APPU
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.698 of 2020
2
2025:KER:62585
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.698 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (the Act) has been filed by the third respondent/insurer in O.P.
(MV) No.1960/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Ernakulam (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the Award dated
15/06/2019. The sole respondent herein is the claim petitioner 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 29/01/2015 at
about 04:00 p.m., while he was driving autorickshaw bearing
registration No. KL-39-B-1074 through Peppathy-Veliyanad road and
when he reached near Peppathy Chinmaya junction, bus bearing
registration No.KL-17-A-2823 driven by the first respondent in a rash
and negligent manner dashed on his vehicle, as a result of which he
2025:KER:62585
sustained grievous injuries.
3. The first respondent/driver and the second
respondent/owner remained ex parte.
4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement
admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part of the first
respondent/driver of the offending bus. The age, occupation and
income were disputed. It was also contended that the amount claimed
was exorbitant.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by
either side. Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the claim
petitioner. No documentary evidence was produced by the
respondents. Ext.X1 Standing Disability Assessment Board Certificate
issued from Govt. Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, was also
marked.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary
evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of
the first respondent/driver of the offending bus resulting in the incident
and hence awarded an amount of ₹10,12,520/- together with interest @
2025:KER:62585
9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of 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 counsel for the third
respondent/insurer that the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the notional
income at ₹12,000/- when there is absolutely no evidence produced to
substantiate the same. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the claim petitioner that the notional income fixed by the
Tribunal is quite reasonable and that it does not call for any
interference.
9.1. The fact that the claim petitioner is a driver is not
2025:KER:62585
seen disputed. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, he has license
for driving both transport and non transport vehicle as well as badge.
That being the position, I find that an amount of ₹12,000/- fixed as
notional income is just and reasonable and that it does not call for any
interference.
Medical bills
10. The learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer
objects to Ext.A11 bills that were accepted by the Tribunal based on
which, an amount of ₹3,44,300/- has been granted. According to him,
the bills do not even have dates. The bills were not proved as per the
law and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have relied on the same
and awarded amounts based on the bill. Per contra, it is submitted by
the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that some of the bills were
excluded and the amounts as per the said bills were not granted by the
Tribunal. The other bills do have dates and therefore, there is no error
committed by the Tribunal calling for an interference by this court.
10.1. On going through the bills on record, I find that a few
of the bills, that is item Nos.17 and 18 were excluded as the said
2025:KER:62585
amounts were the amounts spent towards food, accommodation etc.
All the other bills that have been marked as Ext.A11, contain dates and
therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the Tribunal accepting those
bills and awarding the amounts evidenced by aforesaid bills.
In the result, the appeal sans merit is dismissed.
The third respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the
compensation with interest and costs before the Tribunal within a
period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
On deposit of the compensation amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the
amount to 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
ak
