Kerala High Court
Lyla vs Vineeth on 27 August, 2025
2025:KER:65840
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. 2057 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPMV NO.96 OF 2018 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
LYLA
AGED 46 YEARS
D/O. ALIKUTTY, KUNNATHIPARAMBU HOUSE, PULLUMEDU KARA,
ANAVILASAM, PERIYAR, CHENKARA VILLAGE, PEERUMEDU TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 685 533.
BY ADVS.
SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE
SMT.A.A.GEETHA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 VINEETH
S/O. GEETHA, THAIKUTTATHIL HOUSE, ERUMATHALA P O,
VAZHAKULAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 683112.
2 AJIMON
S/O. ALIKUTTY, POOVANCHERRY HOUSE, KEEZHMAD,
ERUMATHALA KARA, KEEZHMAD VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 683105.
2025:KER:65840
MACA NO. 2057 OF 2020
2
3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 686661,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.
BY ADV SHRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:65840
MACA NO. 2057 OF 2020
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.96 of 2018 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, has preferred this
appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the
tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by her in a motor
accident that occurred on 05.12.2017 .
2. The facts of the case in brief is as follows:-
On 05.12.2017, at around 7.30 a.m., while the
petitioner was traveling in a car bearing registration No.KL-42-
D9999 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent
manner and in an exhorbitant speed, it hit against a wall and the
petitioner sustained severe injuries.
3. The driver and owner of the car bearing
registration No.KL-42D-9999 were arrayed as the 1st and 2nd
respondents respectively, whereas, the insurer was arrayed as the
3rd respondent. 1st and 2nd respondents were set ex parte. The 3 rd
respondent contested the petition and filed written statement
mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite
admitting insurance coverage for the car involved in the accident.
2025:KER:65840
MACA NO. 2057 OF 2020
4. During trial, the documents produced from the
side of the petitioner were marked as Exts.A1 to A14. No
evidence, whatsoever, was produced from the side of the
respondent.
5. After trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion
that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent
driving of car bearing registration No.KL-42-D-9999 by the 1st
respondent, and being the insurer, the 3 rd respondent was held
liable to pay the compensation. The compensation was quantified
at Rs.5,17,900/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from
the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs.
Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the tribunal, the
petitioner has come up with this appeal.
6. I heard the learned counsel appearing for both
sides.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various
heads is too meager and not sufficient to compensate the actual
loss and damages incurred by the petitioner due to the accident.
2025:KER:65840
MACA NO. 2057 OF 2020
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.
8. From the rival contentions raised, it is discernible
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 award reveals that for the purpose of determining
the compensation under the head of permanent disability and loss
of earnings, the tribunal assessed the income of the petitioner at
Rs.10,000/-. Though in the petition, it was averred that during
the period of accident the petitioner was working as a home nurse
in Kuwait. No materials whatsoever, has been produced from the
side of the petitioner to substantiate her contentions regarding
her occupation and income. It was mainly taking note of the said
fact, the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at
Rs. 10,000/- notionally. However, I am of the considered view
that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the petitioner,
particularly when the year of the accident is 2017. As the year of
2025:KER:65840
MACA NO. 2057 OF 2020
accident is 2017, applying the principles laid down in
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance
Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236]., the tribunal ought to have
assessed the monthly income for the petitioner at Rs. 11,000/-
notionally.
9. Moreover, in order to prove that the petitioner
suffered permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the
accident, a disability certificate issued by the District Medical
Board was produced and marked as Ext. A10. In Ext.A10, it is
noted that the petitioner suffered a permanent disability of 40%,
due to the injuries sustained in the accident. However, the
tribunal scaled down the disability to 15%, mainly on a finding
that the percentage of the disability assessed by the medical
board will not commensurate with the nature of the injuries
sustained by the petitioner. While considering the question
whether the tribunal is justified in scaling down the disability, it is
apposite to consider the nature of the injuries sustained by her. A
perusal of the medical records, pressed into to service from the
side of the petitioner reveals that the petitioner had sustained the
2025:KER:65840
MACA NO. 2057 OF 2020
following injuries in the accident: 1) Multiple fracture 1 st, 2nd, 3rd
meta carpel areas with contamination 2) Extensor tenden cut
injury 3) Crush injury left hand forearm and rist. It is
demonstrably clear that the main injury sustained by the
petitioner is the fracture of the meta carpel area. Though the said
injury is a grievous in nature, I am of the considered view that
the same will no way contribute 40% of permanent disability as
assessed in the disability certificate. I am not unmindful of the
fact that the disability certificate has been issued by a competent
medical board. However, the disability certificate, does not clarify
that whether the percentage of the disability assessed relates
specifically to the particular limb or to the overall functional
disability of the petitioner. Moreover, the tribunal also had taken
a view that the disability noted in the disability certificate is on
the higher side and accordingly scaled it down the disability to
15%. I also agree with the finding of the tribunal in the above
regard. However I have some disagreement with respect to the
percentage of disability, finally considered by the tribunal for
awarding the compensation. Considering the grave nature of the
2025:KER:65840
MACA NO. 2057 OF 2020
injury sustained by the petitioner, I am of the view that a
disability of 20% can be reckoned for determining the quantum of
compensation awardable under the head of permanent disability.
Likewise, the injuries sustained by the petitioner would have a
significant bearing on her day to day functions. Considering the
said aspect, I am of the view that such disability would
necessarily have some impact on her future earning capacity as
well. Therefore, an addition has to be made to her actual income
towards her future prospectus. I am of the view that, an addition
of 5% would be justifiable towards future prospectus.
Accordingly, the income of the petitioner can be assessed at
Rs.11,550/-.
10. Admittedly the petitioner was aged 44 at the
time of the accident, and hence the multiplier to be reckoned is
14. Resultantly, the petitioner is found to be entitled to get an
amount of Rs. 3,88,080 (11,550 x 12 x 14 x 20/100) as
compensation under the head of permanent disability. Already
an amount of Rs.2,34,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal
under the said head. After deducting the said amount the
2025:KER:65840
MACA NO. 2057 OF 2020
petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 1,54,080 as
additional compensation under the said head.
11. Consequent to the revision in the monthly
income, there must be a corresponding enhancement, to the
compensation awarded under the head of loss of earnings. The
nature of the injuries suggests that the petitioner would have
been prevented from doing any work for earning income at least 5
months. However the tribunal awarded compensation under the
head of loss of earnings only for a period of two months. The
petitioner is hence found entitled to get an amount of Rs.
55,000/-(11,000 x 5) as compensation under the head of loss of
earnings. After deducting the already awarded amount of
Rs.20,000/-under the said head, the petitioner is entitled to get
an amount of Rs.35,000/- as additional compensation under the
head of loss of earning as well.
12. Likewise, the nature of the injuries sustained by
the petitioner speaks for itself regarding the pain and sufferings
endured by her due to the accident. Already an amount of Rs.
50,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal under the said head.
2025:KER:65840
MACA NO. 2057 OF 2020
The same appears to be on the lower side. Considering the
nature of the injuries and treatment procedures underwent by the
petitioner, I am of the view that, she is entitled to get an
additional compensation of Rs. 10,000/- under the had pain and
sufferings.
13. A perusal of the award further reveals that the
tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation
under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. The
hardships and inconveniences met by the petitioner due to the
injury sustained in the accident could not have been overlooked
by the tribunal while awarding compensation under the said head.
Given the nature of the injury sustained by the petitioner and the
period of treatment underwent by her, I am of the view that an
additional compensation of Rs. 20,000/- is to be awarded under
the said head as well.
14. The compensation awarded by the tribunal under
other heads appears to be reasonable and justifiable, and hence,
no interference is warranted. Hence, an amount of Rs. 2,19,080/-
[1,54,080+35,000+10,000+20,000] (Rupees Two Lakh Nineteen
2025:KER:65840
MACA NO. 2057 OF 2020
Thousand Eighty only) has to be added towards the total
compensation awarded by the tribunal.
In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings,
the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further
amount of Rs. Rs. 2,19,080/-( Rupees Two Lakh Nineteen
Thousand Eighty 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
