Kerala High Court
Venugopalan Pillai vs Vishnu (Owner Cum Driver) on 27 August, 2025
2025:KER:65863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 5TH BHADRA, 1947
MACA NO. 3504 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 24.03.2020 IN OPMV NO.452 OF
2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
VENUGOPALAN PILLAI
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.MADHAVAN UNNITHAN, KANNAMATH (AMBADI), NEDUMPANA
CHERRY, NEDUMPANA P.O., NEDUMPANA VILLAGE,
KOLLAM 691 576
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR)
SHRI.K.B.UDAYAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 VISHNU (OWNER CUM DRIVER)
S/O.VENU PILLAI, VILAVEETTIL MELATHIL, NEDUMPANA P.O.,
NEDUMPANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM 691 576
2 THE BRANCH MANAGEER
UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KOLLAM BEACH ROAD BRACH,
691 001 (INSURER)
BY ADV SHRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
2025:KER:65863
MACA NO. 3504 OF 2020
2
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 27.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:65863
MACA NO. 3504 OF 2020
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.452 of 2017 on the file of the
Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-IV, Kollam has preferred this
appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal
on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that
occurred on 14.11.2016.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:-
On 14.11.2016, at 10.15 p.m., while the petitioner was
traveling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-
02-AD-6276 through Kureeppally-Pazhangalam road, and when reached
at Nedumpana Thadathil Ration kada junction, an autorikshaw bearing
registration NO.KL- 24-F-6431, driven by the 2 nd respondent in a rash
and negligent manner, hit on the motorcycle in which the petitioner was
on the pillion. Due to the impact of the hit, the petitioner was thrown
onto the road, causing serious injuries on him.
3. The owner-cum-driver of the offending autorikshaw
was arrayed as 1st respondent, whereas, the insurer was arrayed as 2nd
respondent. 1st respondent was set exparte. The 2nd
2025:KER:65863
MACA NO. 3504 OF 2020
respondent/insurance company contested the petition and filed a
written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation
awarded despite admitting insurance coverage for the autorikshaw
involved in the accident.
5. During trial, the documents produced from the side of
the petitioner were marked as Exts.A1 to A9 and the disability
certificate issued by the medical board was marked as Ext. X1. No
evidence, whatsoever, was produced from the side of the respondents.
6. After trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the
accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the
autorikshaw bearing registration NO-KL-24-F-6431 by the 1st
respondent, and being the insurer, the 2nd respondent was held liable to
pay the compensation. The compensation was quantified at Rs.
9,73,598/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of
petition till realisation and proportionate costs. Dissatisfied with the
quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the petitioner has
come up with this appeal.
7. I heard Sri.K.S.Manu, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Sri.P.Jacob Mathew, the learned counsel for the
2025:KER:65863
MACA NO. 3504 OF 2020
respondent/insurance company.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submits
that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads is
too meager and is not sufficient to compensate the actual loss and
damages suffered by the petitioner due to the accident. According to
the learned counsel, the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the
petitioner reasonably and awarded only a nominal amount as
compensation under the heads of permanent disability. The learned
counsel further submitted that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under other heads, including pain and suffering, loss of
amenities and enjoyment in life, etc., are also on the lower side and
hence, interference is warranted. Per contra, the learned counsel for
the respondent, the insurance company, would submit that the
compensation awarded by the tribunal under each and every head is
just, fair, reasonable, and adequate, and hence, no interference is
warranted.
9. From the rival contentions raised it is gatherable that,
the main dispute that revolves around this appeal is with respect to the
quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. A perusal of the
2025:KER:65863
MACA NO. 3504 OF 2020
award reveals that, for the purpose of determining compensation under
the head of permanent disability and loss of earnings, the tribunal
assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs. 25,000/-. In the
petition, it was averred that the petitioner was working as a Senior
Instructor in District Co-Operative Bank, Kollam and he was earning a
monthly income of Rs.61,300/- at the time of the accident. In order to
substantiate his contention regarding his occupation and income, a
salary certificate issued from the District Co-operative Bank, Kollam, is
produced and marked in evidence as Ext.A8. In Ext.A8, it is specifically
mentioned that the petitioner was getting a monthly salary of Rs.
61,300/- at the time of the accident. However, without assigning any
convincing reason, the tribunal scaled down the monthly income of the
petitioner to Rs. 25,000/- for the purpose of determining the
compensation under the head of permanent disability and loss of
earnings. As already stated, the petitioner he was a permanent
employee in a district Co-operative Bank. However, the petitioner does
not have a case that because of the injuries sustained in the accident,
he lost his job or there was any reduction in his salary. Dealing with a
similar situation, this Court in Raju Sebastian v. United India Insurance
2025:KER:65863
MACA NO. 3504 OF 2020
Company Ltd. [(2021) R KLT 136] held as follows: "from the materials
available on record, it can be seen that despite of the injury sustained
by the appellant he continued in his employment and finding of the
tribunal that he has not sustained any loss of earning capacity during
the period of his service with the Kerala Water Authority is a probable
view. In my view, it is a sustainable findings as he could continue in
the service up to his retirement age at 56. Consequently, the question
of loss of earning power would arise only for period after his
retirement." After making such an observation, the learned judge in
Raju Sebastian's Case (cited supra) assessed the loss of income by
taking 50% of the salary as notional income and applied the multiplier
applicable in the case of a victim falls under the age group of 55 and
60, in view of the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)]. I am also of the view that the
principles laid down in Raju Sebastian's Case (cited Supra) can be
applied in the present case also, particularly when there is no evidence
to show that due to the injury sustained, the petitioner either lost his
job or there occurred any reduction in his salary. The salary certificate
produced from the side of the petitioner shows that he was getting a
2025:KER:65863
MACA NO. 3504 OF 2020
monthly income of Rs. 61,300/- at the time of the accident. Therefore,
½ of the said salary can be treated as his monthly income. If that be
so, the monthly income of the petitioner can be fixed at Rs. 30,650/-.
10. In order to prove that the petitioner suffered
permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident, a
disability certificate issued from the competent medical board is seen
produced and marked in evidence as Ext.X1. In Ext.X1 disability
certificate, it is mentioned that the petitioner is affected with a
functional disability of 15%. Likewise medical records adduced in this
case reveals that the petitioner had sustained the following injuries in
the accident; 1) type IIIB open comminuted fracture distal right, type
IIIB open fracture 2nd metatarsal right foot 2) laceration over antero
medical aspect of right knee exposing the comminuted distal femur
fracture 3) laceration over MIII of right leg anteriorly and dorso medial
aspect of right foot apart from fracture to 2 nd right foot. Of course, the
nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner justifies the
assessment of 15% percentage of the disability assessed by the
competent medical board. Considering the fact that the retirement age
of the petitioner is 56, a multiplier of 7, which is the multiplier of a
2025:KER:65863
MACA NO. 3504 OF 2020
victim of a motor accident who falls under the age group of 55 and 60.
Hence the petitioner is found to be entitled to get an amount of
Rs.3,86,190/-(30,650/-x 12 x 7 x 15/100) as compensation under the
head of permanent disability. Already an amount of Rs.3,15,000/- .has
been awarded by the tribunal under the said head. After deducting the
said amount the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of additional
compensation of Rs.71,190/- under the head of permanent disability.
11. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the
petitioner, I am of the view that, the compensation awarded by the
tribunal under the head of pain and sufferings is also on the lower side.
Only an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was seen awarded by the tribunal
under the said head. The nature of the injuries sustained by the
petitioner speaks for itself regarding the pain and sufferings suffered
by him. He was treated as an inpatient for 9 days and had undergone
complicated treatment procedures. Therefore, while awarding
compensation, the pain and sufferings incurred by the petitioner cannot
be overlooked. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to
get an additional compensation of Rs. 25,000/- under the said head as
well. Similarly, while awarding compensation, the hardships and
2025:KER:65863
MACA NO. 3504 OF 2020
inconvenience met by the petitioner due to the accident also cannot be
disregarded. He was constrained to take half-pay leave for around four
months. If he had not availed those leaves he could have used those
leaves for other purposes. Hence, considering the hardships and
inconveniences met by the petitioner due to the injuries sustained in
the accident, I am of the view that, an amount of Rs. 75,000/- can be
awarded as compensation under the head of loss of amenities and
enjoyment of life. After deducting the already awarded amount of Rs.
50,000/- under the said head, the petitioner is entitled to get an
amount of Rs. 25,000/- as additional compensation under the said
head.
12. The compensation awarded by the tribunal under
other various heads appears to be reasonable and will commensurate
with the loss and damages suffered by the petitioner in the accident
and hence, no interference is warranted. Hence, an amount of Rs.
96190/- ( 71,190 + 25000) ( Ninety Six thousand One hundred and
Ninety only) has to be added towards the total compensation awarded
by the Tribunal.
2025:KER:65863
MACA NO. 3504 OF 2020
In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the
appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of
Rs. 96190/- (Ninety Six thousand One hundred and Ninety only) with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation
from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit. The
respondent insurance company is ordered to deposit the enhanced
compensation with interest and proportionate costs before the tribunal
within a period of three months from the date of this judgment.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
mus
