Kerala High Court
Anshad vs The Divisional Manager on 27 August, 2025
2025:KER:65803
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. 3524 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 15.11.2017 IN OPMV NO.566 OF
2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ANSHAD
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O.ABDUL RASHEED, THARAYIL THEKKATHIL, KAPPIL MEKKU
MURI, KRISHNAPURAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 690 533.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.SIJU
SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI
RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
M/S.NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., HOSPITAL ROAD, KOLLAM,
PIN - 691 306.
BY ADV SMT.SARAH SALVY
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 27.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:65803
MACA NO. 3524 OF 2020
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.566 of 2014 on the file of
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, has preferred
this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation
awarded by the tribunal on account of the injuries sustained
by him in a motor accident that occurred on 11.10.2013.
2. The facts of the case in brief is as follows:-
On 11.10.2013, at about 4.00 p.m., while the
petitioner was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.
KL-31/C-3479 through Kollam-Alappuzha NH road from south
to north direction, a car bearing Reg.No. TN-75-K-0144
which came from the opposite direction and driven by the 2 nd
respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the
motorcycle ridden by the petitioner. Due to the impact of the
hit, the petitioner fell down the ground and sustained serious
injuries.
2025:KER:65803
MACA NO. 3524 OF 2020
3. The driver and owner of the car bearing
registration No.TN-75-K/0144 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 3rd 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.
4. During trial, the documents produced from
the side of the petitioner were marked as Exts.A1 to A11. No
evidence, whatsoever, was produced from the side of the
respondents.
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. TN75-K-
0144 by the 2nd respondent, and being the insurer, the 3 rd
respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The
compensation was quantified at Rs.1,34,700/- with interest
2025:KER:65803
MACA NO. 3524 OF 2020
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. 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
2025:KER:65803
MACA NO. 3524 OF 2020
tribunal. As revealed from the impugned award, for the
purpose of determining the compensation under the head of
permanent disability and loss of earnings, the tribunal
assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.5,000/-.
In the petition it was claimed that the petitioner was working
as an aluminum fabricator at the time of the accident and
was earning a monthly income of Rs. 20,000/-. However
other than raising such a contention in the petition, no
evidence whatsoever, was produced from the side of the
petitioner to substantiate his claim regarding his income and
occupation. Nevertheless, admittedly the accident occurred
in the year 2013. Therefore, having regard to the year of
accident and by applying the principles laid down by the
Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC
236], the tribunal ought to have assessed the monthly
income of the petitioner at Rs. 9,000/- notionally. No
disability certificate, has been produced from the side of the
2025:KER:65803
MACA NO. 3524 OF 2020
petitioner to show that he suffered any permanent disability
due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Despite the
absence of such evidences taking into account the grave
nature of the injuries sustained, the tribunal considered 5%
percentage permanent disability for the purpose of awarding
compensation under the head of permanent disability.
9. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained
by the petitioner, I find no reason to interfere with the
percentage of disability applied by the tribunal. In view of
the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation
[2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)], the multiplier to be applied is 17 as
the petitioner was aged only 29 at the time of the accident.
Hence, the petitioner is found to be entitled to get an amount
of Rs. 91,800/- (9,000 x 12 x 17 x 5/100) as compensation
under the head of permanent disability. Already an amount
of Rs. 51,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal as
compensation under the said head. After deducting the said
amount the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs.
2025:KER:65803
MACA NO. 3524 OF 2020
40,800/- as additional compensation under the head of
permanent disability.
10. Consequent to the revision in the monthly
income corresponding enhancement must be made to the
compensation awarded by the tribunal under the head of loss
of earnings. The tribunal awarded compensation under the
said head only for a period of 5 months. Considering the
nature of the injuries and the treatment procedures
undergone by the petitioner, I am of the view that the
compensation for loss of earnings can be awarded for a
period of 8 months. Hence the petitioner is entitled to get an
amount of Rs. 72000 (9000 x 8) as compensation under the
said head. Already an amount of Rs. Rs.25,000/- has been
awarded by the tribunal under the said head. After
deducting the said amount the petitioner is entitled to get an
additional compensation of Rs. 47,000/- under the head of
loss of earnings as well.
2025:KER:65803
MACA NO. 3524 OF 2020
11. Similarly, the nature of the injuries sustained
by the petitioner speaks for itself regarding the pain and
sufferings endured by him due to the accident. Already an
amount of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal
under the said head. The same appears to be on the lower
side. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the
petitioner and the treatment procedures underwent by him, I
am of the view that he is entitled to get an additional
compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only)
under the head of pain and sufferings as well.
12. A perusal of the award further reveals that
the tribunal omitted to award any amount under the head of
loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. The hardships and
inconveniences met by the petitioner due to the injuries
sustained in the accident cannot be overlooked while
awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities
and enjoyment of life. Given the nature of injuries sustained
by him, I am of the view that an amount of Rs.50,000/-
2025:KER:65803
MACA NO. 3524 OF 2020
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) is to be awarded as
compensation under the head of loss of amenities and
enjoyment of life.
13. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under other heads appears to be reasonable and justifiable,
and hence, no interference is warranted with respect to those
heads. Resultantly, an amount of Rs. 1,87,800/-
(40800+47000+50000+50000) 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. 1,87,800/-
(Rupees One Lakh Eighty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred
only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the
enhanced compensation from the date of claim petition till
the date of deposit, after deducting interest for a period of
555 days, i.e., the period of delay in preferring this appeal
and as directed by this Court on 09.04.2021 in
2025:KER:65803
MACA NO. 3524 OF 2020
C.M.Appln.No.2/2020. 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.
Immediately on the compensation amount being
deposited, the tribunal shall, after dedcuting the liability of
the appellant/petitioner towards court fee, disburse the
compensation amount to the appellant/petitioner in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
mus
