[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Rajesh N.K vs Chandra on 6 December, 2025
2025:KER:95326
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
SATURDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA,
1947
MACA NO. 518 OF 2016
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 04.11.2014 IN OPMV NO.180
OF 2011 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD
APPELLANT:
RAJESH N.K.
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.KUMARAN, RESIDING NEAR LIGHT
HOUSE,NELLIKKUNNU, KADAPURAM, KASARAGOD
DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.S.JIJI
RESPONDENTS:
1 CHANDRA
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O.ANDRU, NEAR GUDDE TEMPLE, KUDLU VILLAGE
ANDPOST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 124.
2 SANDEEP KUMAR (DELETED)
S/O.AITHAPPA, BATTAMPARA HOUSE,
SURLU,R.D.NAGAR POST, KUDLU, KASARGOD - 671
125.
MACA NO. 518 OF 2016
:2: 2025:KER:95326
3 THE BRANCH MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., M.G.ROAD,KASARAGOD
- 671 121.(RESPONDENT NO. 2 IS DELETED FROM
THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT
AS PER ORDER DATED 08/12/2022 IN MACA
518/2016.)
BY ADV SHRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 06.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 518 OF 2016
:3: 2025:KER:95326
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.180
of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Kasaragod, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation
awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein are the
respondents before the tribunal.
2. The case of the claimant is that on 05.10.2010,
while he was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing
Registration No. KL-14/B-8330 from Kasaragod to
Nellikkunnu Kadappuram, the autorickshaw, on reaching
Nellikkunnu, hit on an electric post. As a result of the
accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The
claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total
compensation of ₹1,00,000/-.
3. The first and second respondents, driver and the
owner of the offending vehicle, respectively filed a written
MACA NO. 518 OF 2016
:4: 2025:KER:95326
statement denying negligence on the first respondent. The
third respondent- insurance company filed a written
statement admitting the insurance policy but disputing the
quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal,
Exts.A1 to A13 and Ext.B1 were marked. The Tribunal, after
analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a
compensation of ₹2,94,000/- under different heads with
interest @8% per annum from the date of petition till
realization, against the 3rd respondent being the insurer.
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by
the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the
learned Standing Counsel for the insurer.
5. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging
compensation under the following heads:-
Notional income :- The learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that, though an amount of ₹7,500/- was
MACA NO. 518 OF 2016
:5: 2025:KER:95326
claimed as the income of the injured, who was a car driver,
the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹4,000/- as the
monthly income of the appellant. The learned Counsel further
submits that even going by the judgment in
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the income of a
Coolie for an accident in 2010 is fixed at ₹7,500/- and sought
for enhancement of the income fixed. In order to award a just
and reasonable compensation and considering the principles
laid down following the judgment in Ramachandrappa
(supra), I am inclined to re-fix the monthly income at
₹7,500/-.
Loss of earnings:- Since the notional income is fixed
as ₹7,500/-, I find that a total amount of ₹90,000/- (7,500 x
12) is payable under the afore head. Since the tribunal has
awarded only an amount of ₹48,000/- for a period of 12
months under the afore head, there will be an additional
MACA NO. 518 OF 2016
:6: 2025:KER:95326
amount of ₹42,000/- under the head loss of earnings.
Extra nourishment- On a perusal of the award, it is
seen that the claimant underwent in-patient treatment for 50
days. Considering the fact that the accident occurred in the
year 2010, I find it appropriate to take an amount of ₹250/-
per day for 50 days. Thus, the total compensation payable
under the head extra nourishment is ₹12,500/- (250 x 50).
The tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹2,000/- under the
said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of
₹10,500/- under the afore head.
Pain and suffering:- The learned counsel for the
appellant submits the tribunal awarded only an amount of
₹16,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is on the lower
side. Considering the injuries sustained by the appellant, I
am inclined to grant an amount of ₹30,000/- to the appellant
as a total compensation towards pain and suffering. Thus, the
appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of
MACA NO. 518 OF 2016
:7: 2025:KER:95326
₹14,000/- as compensation under this head.
Loss of amenities :- On a perusal of the records, it is
seen that the tribunal has not awarded any towards loss of
amenities. Considering the loss of enjoyment in life, I find
that the appellant is entitled to get a total amount of
₹30,000/- as compensation under the afore head.
Compensation for Permanent Partial disability:-
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Ext.A4
disability certificate was issued by Dr.Ullas Shetty, who
was examined as PW1. In Ext.A4, the permanent disability of
the claimant, was assessed at 16%. However, the Tribunal
has reduced the percentage of disability to 10% as the whole
body disability. Since the doctor was examined and the
disability certificate was duly proved, I do not find any reason
to disbelieve the assessment of 16% permanent disability.
However, I find that since the doctor was examined and he
had deposed that there was a disability for the appellant, I
MACA NO. 518 OF 2016
:8: 2025:KER:95326
find it appropriate to refix the functional disability as 14%.
Following the judgments of the apex court in Pranay Sethi
(supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation
[2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the compensation payable under the
head is recalculated thus: ₹2,01,600/- (7,500 x 12 x 16 x
14%) as the total compensation payable towards loss of
dependency. The tribunal has awarded an amount of
₹76,800/- under the head loss of dependency. Thus, there will
be an additional amount of ₹1,24,800/- under the afore
head.
6. Though the appellant claimed enhancement of
compensation under the other heads, on a perusal of the
records available, I am not inclined to interfere with the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads
since it appears to be just and reasonable. Since the appeal is
of the year 2016, I find it reasonable to fix the interest @ 7%
per annum on the enhanced amount.
MACA NO. 518 OF 2016
:9: 2025:KER:95326
7. Thus, the impugned award of the Tribunal is
modified as follows:-
Sl.
N Head of Claim Amount Amount Modified in Total
o claimed awarded appeal compensa
by the tion
Tribunal
1 Transportation 25,000 Not 25,000
modified
2 Damage to clothing 1,000 Not 1,000
modified
3 Loss of earning 48,000 42,000 90,000
4 Bystander expense 36,000 Not 36,000
modified
5 Extra nourishment 2,000 10,500 12,500
charges
6 Medical expenses 89,000 Not 89,000
modified
7 Compensation for 16,000 14,000 30,000
pain and suffering
8 Compensation for 76,800 1,24,800 2,01,600
permanent partial
disability
9 Loss of amenities - 30,000 30,000
TOTAL 1,00,000 2,93,800 2,21,300 5,15,100
rounded
to
2,94,000
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the
appellant is awarded an additional compensation of
MACA NO. 518 OF 2016
:10: 2025:KER:95326
₹2,21,300/- (Rupees Two lakhs twenty one thousand and
three hundred only) over and above the compensation
awarded by the tribunal with interest @7% per annum from
the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs.
The respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount
together with interest and costs within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment. The appellant shall furnish copies of the PAN
Card, AADHAAR Card and bank details before the
respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to
enable the insurance company to make the deposit as
ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above,
it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said
amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made,
the entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellant at the
earliest in accordance with law. However, it is made clear
that the enhanced compensation will not carry interest for
MACA NO. 518 OF 2016
:11: 2025:KER:95326
the period of delay 363 days in filing the appeal.
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
SRJ
