Kerala High Court
Anoop K.V vs Prakashan C on 22 August, 2025
M.A.C.A. No.850 of 2020
1
2025:KER:63999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 850 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 02.04.2019 IN OP(MV)NO.154 OF 2018
ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-I,
KASARAGOD.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ANOOP K.V.,
AGED 25 YEARS,
S/O MANI, KIZHAKKE VEEDU,
KANNAMKAI, CHERVATHUR P.O.CHERVATHUR VILLAGE,
HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE
SMT.K.R.MONISHA
SMT.V.T.LITHA
SMT.SHRUTHI SARA JACOB
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 PRAKASHAN C.,
AGED 51 YEARS,
S/O GOVINDAN C, SNEHA NIVAS PALLIKKARA,
NILESWAR VILLAGE, P.O.NILESWAR HOSDURG TALUK,
KASARGOD DISTRICT-671 314.
2 THE BRANCH MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
BRANCH OFFICE,
NILESWAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK BUILDING,
N.H. ROAD, P.O.NILESWAR,
NILESWAR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK,
KASARGOD DISTRICT-671 314.
M.A.C.A. No.850 of 2020
2
2025:KER:63999
BY ADV SHRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 22.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. No.850 of 2020
3
2025:KER:63999
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.850 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd 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.154/2018 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-I, Kasaragod (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of
compensation granted by Award dated 02/04/2019. 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 09/09/2015 at about
10:30 a.m., while he was riding his motorcycle bearing registration
No.KL-60J/4483 from Cheruvathur to Kanhangad and when he reached
near Pallikkara bus stop, autorickshaw bearing registration no.KL-
60E/1463 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner
hit his motorcycle, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries.
2025:KER:63999
3. The first respondent/owner-cum-driver filed written
statement denying negligence on his part.
4. The second respondent/insurer filed written statement
admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part of the first
respondent/owner-cum-driver of the offending autorickshaw. The age,
occupation and income were disputed. It was also contended that the
amount claimed was excessive.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by
either side. Exts.A1 to A5 series were marked on the side of the claim
petitioner. No documentary evidence was 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 first respondent/owner-cum-driver of the offending autorickshaw
resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹1,23,091/-
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.
7. The only point that arises for consideration in this
2025:KER:63999
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 graphic designer was earning ₹9,000/- per month. The
Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹7,000/-, which is quite low. He
also submits that though only ₹9,000/- was claimed, the notional income
may be fixed as per the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager,
Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236. Per contra, it
is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer
that as an amount of ₹9,000/- only is claimed, in case this Court is
inclined to enhance the income, it may be fixed at ₹9,000/-.
9.1. It is true that the monthly income claimed is only
₹9,000/-. However, going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra),
the income of even a coolie in the year 2015 is liable to fixed at
2025:KER:63999
₹10,000/-. Hence, I find that the notional income can be fixed as
₹10,000/-.
Loss of earnings
10. The materials on record show that the claim petitioner
sustained the following injuries-
" 1. Sutured wound over the right forehead
2. Multiple abrasions over the forehead.
3. Fracture of right scapular bone.
4. Fracture of thoracic vertebras 11 and 12.
5. Tenderness and swelling over the right wrist
with underlying fracture of distal radius bone.
6. Fracture of proximal phalanx of right little
finger.
7. Cerebral concussion."
He was hospitalized for a period of 16 days in two different spells. In all
probability he might have been unable to work for a period of 7 months.
Hence, he is entitled to compensation at the rate of ₹10,000/-x7 months
=₹70,000/-.
Compensation for pain and suffering
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that
an amount of ₹50,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable.
2025:KER:63999
Compensation for loss of amenities
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case an amount of
₹30,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable.
13. The learned counsel for the claim petitioner submitted
that he has filed I.A.No. 2 of 2020 for receiving disability certificate
dated 12/07/2019 issued by a private doctor. The application is opposed
by the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer, who submits
that since it has been issued by a private doctor, the same cannot be
accepted unless the doctor is examined.
14. The accident took place in the year 2015. The claim
petitioner had ample opportunity and time to produce necessary
documents to substantiate his claim. The certificate that is now
produced along with the application is seen dated 12/07/2019, that is
after the passing of the Award. As the marking and admission of the
document is opposed, the same cannot be admitted at the appellate stage
without examining the doctor. Moreover, this is not a case in which the
claim petitioner has a case that he did not get sufficient opportunity to
produce the document before the Tribunal. That being the position, the
2025:KER:63999
disability certificate produced at this late stage without examining the
doctor cannot be allowed. Hence, the application is dismissed.
15. The impugned Award is modified to the following
extent :
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in appeal
No. claimed Awarded by
Tribunal
a Loss of earning ₹2,61,000/- ₹28,000/- ₹70,000/-
(₹10,000/-x 7 months)
b Partial loss of -- -- --
earning (No modification)
c Transportation ₹30,000/- ₹4,000/- ₹4,000/-
charges (No modification)
d Extra ₹20,000/- ₹1,500/- ₹1,500/-
nourishment (No modification)
e Damage to ₹2,500/- ₹1,500/- ₹1,500/-
clothing and (No modification)
articles
f Others: Medical ₹1,20,000/- ₹49,591/- ₹49,591/-
expenses (No modification)
Bystanders -- ₹8,500/- ₹8,500/-
expense (No modification)
g Compensation ₹2,00,000/- ₹30,000/- ₹50,000/-
for pain and
suffering
h Compensation ₹6,00,000/- -- --
for permanent (No modification)
disability
i Compensation -- -- ₹30,000/-
for loss of
amenities
Total ₹12,73,500/- ₹1,23,091/- ₹2,15,091/-
2025:KER:63999
limited to
₹10,00,000/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹92,000/- (total compensation =
₹2,15,091/-, that is, ₹1,23,091/- granted by the Tribunal + ₹92,000/-
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 361
days delay in filing the appeal) and proportionate costs. The second
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
