Kerala High Court
Mathew vs Sijo George on 19 August, 2025
M.A.C.A. No.675 of 2020
1
2025:KER:62512
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. 675 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 22.10.2018 IN OP(MV)NO.520 OF
2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MATHEW,
AGED 51 YEARS,
S/O.JOSEPH, PLATHOTTATHIL HOUSE,
MANKULAM P.O., MANKULAM KARA,
MANKULAM VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL)
SMT.K.R.MONISHA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SIJO GEORGE,
S/O.GEORGE, MANIMALA HOUSE, MANKULAM P.O.,
THALUMKANDAM KARA, MANKULAM VILLAGE,
IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 612.
2 SHAJI AUGUSTINE,
S/O.AUGUSTHY, KIZHAKKENATH HOUSE,
THAZHUMKANDAM, MANKULAM P.O.,
IDUKKI-685 612.
3 THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
DAIVASAHAYAM BUILDINGS, PONKUNNAM P.O.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 506.
M.A.C.A. No.675 of 2020
2
2025:KER:62512
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.K.SHYJU
SHRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR
SMT.ARCHANA MITHRAN O.K.
SRI.DEEPAK RAJ
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.675 of 2020
3
2025:KER:62512
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.675 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 claim petitioner in O.P.(MV)
No.520/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Pala (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation
granted by Award dated 22/10/2018. The respondents herein are the
respondents 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 19/01/2016 at
about 07:30 p.m., while he was riding scooter bearing registration
no.KL-68-1081 through Mankulam-Munippara road and when he
reached near Madompady bhagam, jeep bearing registration
No.KEV-1894, driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent
manner knocked him down, as a result of which he sustained
2025:KER:62512
grievous injuries.
3. The first respondent/driver filed written statement
denying negligence on his part.
4. The second respondent/owner remained ex parte.
5. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement
admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part of the first
respondent/driver of the offending jeep. It was also contended that
the amount claimed was excessive.
6. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced
by either side. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claim
petitioner. No documentary evidence was produced by the
respondents.
7. 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 jeep resulting in the
incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹85,350/- together with
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of
realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award,
the claim petitioner has come up in appeal.
2025:KER:62512
8. 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.
9. Heard both sides.
10. 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 48 year old mason, was earning ₹20,000/- per month.
However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the claim
petitioner at ₹9,000/-, which is quite low and hence, the same needs
to be appropriately enhanced. Per contra, it is submitted by the
learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the amount that
has been fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable and that it calls for no
interference. However, she submits that in case the Court is inclined
to enhance the notional income, it may be fixed as per the dictum in
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Co.
Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236.
2025:KER:62512
10.1. There is no material on record to prove either the
avocation or income of the claim petitioner. That being the position, I
find that going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra) the
notional income of the claim petitioner can be fixed as ₹10,500/- per
month.
Loss of earnings
11. The materials on record show that the claim
petitioner sustained the following injuries-
"1. Fracture both bones right leg.
2. Pain and tenderness all over the body."
He was hospitalized for a period of 11 days. Hence, compensation
for a period of 6 months can be awarded under this head - ₹10,500/-
x 6 months = ₹63,000/-.
Pain and suffering
12. In the light of the injuries sustained which include
fracture of both bones in the right leg, the amount of ₹50,000/- as
claimed would be just and reasonable under this head.
13. The impugned Award is modified to the following
extent :
2025:KER:62512
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in
No. claimed Awarded by appeal
Tribunal
1 Loss of earning ₹80,000/- ₹27,000/- ₹63,000/-
(₹10,500/-x 6
months)
2 Medical and ₹50,000/- ₹500/- ₹500/-
miscellaneous (No modification)
expenses
3 Bystander ₹10,000/- ₹3,750/- ₹3,750/-
expenses (No modification)
4 Transportation ₹10,000/- ₹2,100/- ₹2,100/-
expenses (No modification)
5 Extra ₹1,000/- ₹1,000/- ₹1,000/-
nourishment (No modification)
6 Damage to ₹1,000/- ₹1,000/- ₹1,000/-
clothing etc. (No modification)
7 Pain and ₹50,000/- ₹30,000/- ₹50,000/-
suffering
8 Compensation ₹60,000/- -- --
for disability (No modification)
9 Compensation ₹50,000/- ₹20,000/- ₹20,000/-
for loss of (No modification)
earning power
and amenities
Total ₹8,00,000/- ₹85,350/- ₹1,41,350/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹56,000/- (total compensation =
₹1,41,350/-, that is, ₹85,350/- granted by the Tribunal + ₹56,000/-
2025:KER:62512
granted in appeal) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of realization (excluding the period of
330 days delay in filing the appeal) and proportionate costs. 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
