Kerala High Court

Muthu vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd on 21 August, 2025

                                              2025:KER:63209

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA

 THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1947

                    MACA NO. 370 OF 2020

     AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 17.06.2019 IN OPMV NO.1332 OF

2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

         MUTHU
         AGED 60 YEARS
         S/O.AUGUSTINE, PAMBUPARA, CHANDRAPURAM,
         WALAYAR.P.O, PALAKKAD-678624

         BY ADV SRI.BABY MATHEW
RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:

         UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
         REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
         NO.2 BHUVANESWAI COMPLEX, DR SANKARAN ROAD,
         NAMAKKAL.P.O, TAMIL NADU-637001
         WITH COMMUNICATION ADDRESS AT
         UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL
         OFFICER, 3RD FLOOR, MALABAR FORT COMPLEX,
         KANDATH COMPLEX, PALAKKAD PO - 678003,
         INSURER OF LORRY NL-01-L-4105,
         POLICY NO.1709003115P103344416,
         VALID FROM 26-06-2015 TO 25-06-2016

         BY ADV SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,UNITED INDIA INSU


     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 21.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
                                                              2025:KER:63209
MACA NO. 370 OF 2020

                                      2



                             C.S.SUDHA, J.
             ----------------------------------------------------
                       M.A.C.A. No.370 of 2020
             ----------------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 21st 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.1332/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

Palakkad, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation

granted by Award dated 17/06/2019. The sole respondent herein is

the third respondent/insurer 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 05/01/2016 at

about 11:00 p.m., while he was riding motorcycle through the

public road, lorry bearing registration no.NL-01-L-4105 driven by

the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him

down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. A sum of 2025:KER:63209 MACA NO. 370 OF 2020

₹8,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.

3. The first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle

remained ex parte.

4. The second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle

filed written statement denying negligence on his part. It was

contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the

claim petitioner. The age, occupation and income of the claim

petitioner were disputed. It was also contended that the amount

claimed as compensation is quite excessive.

5. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement

admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending

vehicle.

6. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by

either side. Exts.A1 to A16 and Ext.C1 were marked on the side of

the claim petitioner and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of

the respondents.

7. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary 2025:KER:63209 MACA NO. 370 OF 2020

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 amount of ₹5,57,579/- together

with interest @ 7.5% 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.

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 was earning ₹25,000/- per month. However, the

Tribunal has fixed the notional income at ₹7,000/- which is quite

low and hence the same needs to be enhanced. He also submits that 2025:KER:63209 MACA NO. 370 OF 2020

I.A. No.1/2025 has been filed for receiving additional documents,

that is, Annexure A1 salary certificate dated 04/10/2022 and

Annexure A2 pay slip for the period from 21/11/2015 to

20/12/2015. It is submitted that the salary may be fixed as per the

additional documents that have been produced. The application for

receiving additional documents is opposed by the learned counsel

for the third respondent/insurer who submits that the said

documents ought to have been produced before the Tribunal and the

same cannot be accepted here as the third respondent/insurer was

never given an opportunity to dispute and adduce evidence against

the same. Therefore, she submits that the additional documents

produced at this stage cannot be accepted. At this juncture, the

learned counsel for the claim petitioner submitted that if this Court

is not inclined to accept the documents, the matter may be

remanded to the Tribunal.

10.1. Before the Tribunal, no documents whatsoever were

produced to substantiate the allegation regarding the income. As the 2025:KER:63209 MACA NO. 370 OF 2020

receipt of the documents in evidence is objected to by the third

respondent/insurer, the same cannot be marked in evidence without

examining the person who had issued the same. For the said

purpose, the matter cannot be remanded as this is not a case in

which the claim petitioner was not given opportunity to adduce

evidence. Therefore, for the purpose of fixing the notional income

alone, I am not inclined to remand the matter to the Tribunal. The

materials on record show that the claim petitioner was a manual

labourer in Malabar Cements at the time of the accident. Going by

the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236, the income is

liable to be fixed at ₹10,500/-. However, taking into account the

facts and circumstances of the case, I find that fixing the notional

income of the claim petitioner at ₹12,000/- would be just and

reasonable.

Addition to be made towards future prospects

11. As the claim petitioner was 56 years old and as the 2025:KER:63209 MACA NO. 370 OF 2020

disability sustained is 20%, I find that 10% of his established

income is liable to be added towards future prospects while

computing compensation for permanent disability.

Loss of earnings

12. The materials on record show that following injuries

were sustained by the claim petitioner:

"1) comminuted fracture right acetabulum and illiac bone with posterior upper dislocation of femoral head

2) inferior pubic rami fractures

3) head injury

4) sciatic nerve palsy right side

5) laceration over right leg and heel

6) abrasion right hand dorsum near wrist 3x3 cms

7) contusion right periorbital region 15x15 cms

8) lacerations anteromedial aspect of proximal 3rd right leg 5x2x2 cms"

The claim petitioner was hospitalized for a period of 26 days.

In all probability, the claim petitioner might have been unable to

work for a period of 8 months. Therefore, I find that he can be

granted compensation towards loss of earnings for a period of 8 2025:KER:63209 MACA NO. 370 OF 2020

months, which comes to ₹96,000/- (12,000 x 8 months).

Bystander expenses

13. It is pointed out that though an amount of ₹30,000/- was

claimed under this head, the Tribunal has granted an amount of

₹7,800/- only. The materials on record show that the claim

petitioner was hospitalized for a period of 26 days. The accident

took place on 05/01/2016. Therefore, I find that bystander expense

at the rate of ₹450/- per day for a period of 26 days can be granted.

Extra nourishment

14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the claim

petitioner can be awarded extra nourishment at the rate of ₹400/-

for a period of 26 days.

Compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life

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

account the nature of injuries and the period of hospitalisation, I

find that an amount of ₹50,000/- under this head would be just and

reasonable.

2025:KER:63209 MACA NO. 370 OF 2020

16. 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 1,00,000/- 42,000/- 96,000/-

                                             (7,000 x 6)      (12,000 x 8)
 2.   Transportation to    25,000/-           5,000/-           5,000/-
      hospital                                              (No Modification)
 3.   Damage to            10,000/-           1,000/-           1,000/-
      clothing and                                          (No Modification)
      articles
 4.   Extra nourishment    20,000/-            5,000/-          10,400/-
                                                               (400 x 26)
 5.   Bystander's          30,000/-            7,800/-          11,700/-
      expenses                                                 (450 x 26)
 6.   Treatment            4,00,000/-        2,95,579/-        2,95,579/-
      expenses                                              (No Modification)
 7.   Compensated for      30,000/-          30,000/-           30,000/-
      pain and suffering                                    (No Modification)
 8.   Compensated for      1,00,000/-         1,51,200/-       2,85,120/-
      loss of future                        (7,000 x 12 x   [(12,000+10%)
      earning power                          9 x 20/100)    x12 x9x 20/100)
 9.   Compensated for      1,00,000/-         20,000/-          50,000/-
      loss of amenities
      and enjoyment in
      life
      Total                limited to        5,57,579/-        7,84,799/-
                           8,00,000/-
                                                      2025:KER:63209
MACA NO. 370 OF 2020

In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the

compensation by a further amount of ₹2,27,220/- (total

compensation = ₹7,84,799/- that is, ₹5,57,579/- granted by the

Tribunal plus ₹2,27,220/- 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 175 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 the

claim petitioner at the earliest in accordance with law after making

deductions, if any.