Kerala High Court

Suresh K vs Shine on 19 August, 2025

                                                    2025:KER:62628
                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. 755 OF 2020

           AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 05.08.2019 IN OPMV NO.1097 OF

2013       OF   ADDITIONAL   MOTOR    ACCIDENT   CLAIMS   TRIBUNAL-II,

ALAPPUZHA

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
                SURESH K.
                AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. KARUNAKARAN, NEDUNGATTU HOUSE,
                S.L. PURAM P.O., KANJIKUZHY P/W-14, CHERTHALA
                TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
                SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR
                SMT.V.SHYLAJA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
       1        SHINE
                S/O. MOHANAN, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
                NELLIPPALLITHARA HOUSE, UDAYANAPURAM P. O.,
                VADAKKE MURI VILLAGE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
                PIN - 686 141.
       2        SHAN N. M.
                S/O. MOHANAN, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
                NELLIPPALLITHARA HOUSE, IRUMPOZHIKKARA,
                UDAYANAPURAM P. O., VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE, VAIKOM,
                KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 141.
       3        THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
                REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
                NEAR YMCA BRIDGE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688 001.
                BY ADV SRI.A.C.DEVY
       THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 19.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
                                                              2025:KER:62628
MACA NO. 755 OF 2020

                                      2



                             C.S.SUDHA, J.
             ----------------------------------------------------
                       M.A.C.A. No.755 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.1097/2013 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal-II, Alappuzha, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of

compensation granted by Award dated 05/08/2019. 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 01/04/2013 at

06:15 p.m., while he was travelling in tempo traveller bearing

registration no.KL-36/3223 driven by the second respondent along

the Kattappana-Thodupuzha road and when he reached near the

Cheruthoni bridge, due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2025:KER:62628 MACA NO. 755 OF 2020

latter, the vehicle fell down from the bridge to the river, as a result

of which he sustained grievous injuries. A sum of ₹25,00,000/- 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 disputed liability. It was contended that the accident

occurred due to the negligence of the claim petitioner.

5. Before the Tribunal, PWs 1, 2 & 4 were examined and

Exts.A1 to A24, Ext.X1 and Exts.A41 to A45 were marked on the

side of the claim petitioner. No evidence was adduced by the third

respondent/insurer.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and

documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found

negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the

offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an 2025:KER:62628 MACA NO. 755 OF 2020

amount of ₹10,74,605/- 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 Senior Executor, "S" Exporters Medicated Coir

Products, Aroor, was earning ₹15,000/- per month. However, the

Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹10,000/- which is quite low

in the light of the materials on record which include Ext.A17 salary

certificate as well as the testimony of PW1. Therefore, the learned 2025:KER:62628 MACA NO. 755 OF 2020

counsel submits that the income may be fixed as per Ext.A17. Per

contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third

respondent/insurer that the Tribunal has given cogent reasons as to

why Ext.A17 was not accepted or relied on for fixing the income as

₹15,000/-. There is no infirmity in the same calling for an

interference by this Court.

9.1. Ext.A17 dated 01/04/2016 issued by the Deputy General

Manager (Human Resources), Santhigiri Ashram, Central Office,

Human Resources Department, states that the claim petitioner was

working as an employee since 2002, drawing a monthly salary of

₹15,000/- and that he continued his services till April 2013 and that

pursuant to the accident, he has not reported for duty. The Tribunal

in paragraph nos.14 and 15, has given the reasons which deterred

the Tribunal from relying on Ext.A17 and fixing the notional

income accordingly. I was taken through the testimony of PW1,

who at one point during his cross-examination even went to the

extent of stating that it was a charitable work that he was doing 2025:KER:62628 MACA NO. 755 OF 2020

along with the other employees. In these circumstances, for the

reasons stated in the impugned Award and in the light of the

testimony of PW1, the Tribunal was right in not completely relying

on Ext.A17 and fixing the notional income. In the absence of any

better evidence, I find that the amount of ₹10,000/- fixed as

notional income is just and reasonable in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

Addition to be made towards future prospects

10. As the claim petitioner was 42 years old and as the

disability sustained is 50% as per Ext.A10 disability certificate, I

find that 25% of his established income is liable to be added

towards future prospects while computing compensation for

permanent disability.

Pain and sufferings

11. The materials on record show that following injuries

were sustained by the claim petitioner:

"1) Fracture humerous ® (Closed comminuted fracture 2025:KER:62628 MACA NO. 755 OF 2020

right distal 3rd)

2) Bimalleolar fracture left ankle closed.

3) Grade I anterior Lisehesis C6/C7."

The claim petitioner was hospitalized for a period of 30 days.

Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that an

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

Loss of amenities in life

12. In the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into

account the period of hospitalization, 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

extent:

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

1. Loss of earning 1,80,000/- 1,20,000/- 1,20,000/-

(No Modification)

2. Expenses towards 10,000/- 34,105/- 34,105/-

treatment till date (No Modification) under several heads such as medicine, transportation, x-

2025:KER:62628 MACA NO. 755 OF 2020

ray and scanning charges, operation expenses, room rent, bystander etc.

3. Expenses for 2,00,000/- Nil Nil further treatment (No Modification)

4. Damage to clothing 3,000/- 500/- 500/-

      and articles                                         (No Modification)
 5.   Pain and sufferings    2,00,000/-       40,000/-         60,000/-
 6.   Loss of amenities      1,00,000/-       40,000/-         60,000/-
      in life
 7.   Disfiguration           20,000/-          Nil             Nil
                                                           (No Modification)
 8.   Permanent              15,75,000/-        Nil             Nil
      disability                                           (No Modification)
 9.   Loss of earning        4,00,000/-       8,40,000/-     10,50,000/-
      power                                  (10,000 x12   [(10,000+25%)
                                             x14x50/100)   x12x14x50/100]
      Total                  26,75,000/-     10,74,605/-     13,24,605/-
                              limited to
                             25,00,000/-

In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the

compensation by a further amount of ₹2,50,000/- (total

compensation = ₹13,24,605/- that is, ₹10,74,605/- granted by the

Tribunal plus ₹2,50,000/- 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 203 days delay in filing the appeal) and 2025:KER:62628 MACA NO. 755 OF 2020

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.