[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
R.Unnikrishna Pillai vs T.Manikandan on 17 December, 2025
2025:KER:97635
MACA No.2345/2015
..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
MACA NO. 2345 OF 2015
OPMV NO.1066 OF 2003 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
R.UNNIKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, FORMERLY
RESIDING AT MINI BHAVAN, MANNANTHALA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND NOW RESIDING AT T.C33/3031,
MIDHILA, RGRA-10, ROSE GARDENS RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION,
MUKKOLA, NETTAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 013.
BY ADVS. SHRI.V.AJAKUMAR
SHRI.T.M.CHANDRAN
SMT.V.K.GAYATHRI DEVI
SRI.N.S.RAVINDRANATHAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 T.MANIKANDAN, S/O.THANU MOORTHY, 9-VAGAIYADI EAST, CAR
STREET, KOTTAR, NAGERCOIL, K.K.DISTRICT PIN: 629 001.
2 BALAKRISHNAN SO.CHOKALINGA KOVAR, 12, YADAVAR MIDDLE
STREET, VALLIYOOR, RADHAPURAM, TAMIL NADU, PIN: 627 111.
3 THE BRANCH MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THIRUNELVELI BR., THERUNELVELI, TAMIL NADU - 627 001.
BY ADVS. SRI.S.K.BALACHANDRAN
SRI.V.K.NANDAKUMARAN
SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:97635
MACA No.2345/2015
..2..
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.1066
of 2003 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Thiruvananthapuram, claiming enhancement of compensation. The
respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.
2. The case of the claimant was that on 19.04.2003, while
he was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-01-V-8042 from Kollam
to Karunagappally, a mini lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-74-F-7772 driven by
the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the
motorcycle, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the
tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹3,00,000/-.
3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and driver of
the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the
tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement,
admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing
the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. PW1 was examined
and Exts.A1 to A12 & X1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the
pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on
account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and
2025:KER:97635
..3..
awarded a sum of ₹67,600/- as compensation under different heads with
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization,
against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the
quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has
come up in appeal.
4. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent insurer. No representation for the appellant.
5. The appellant claimed enhancement under the
following heads:
5.1. Notional income - On a perusal of the impugned
award, it appears that the appellant was a government employee and
was earning ₹8,500/- per month. Even going by the judgment in Raju
Sebastian v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2021) 6 KLT 136],
only 50% of the income has to be taken for awarding compensation in
the case of a government employee, whereas the tribunal fixed the
monthly income of the appellant at ₹5,000/-. However, as no appeal has
been filed by the respondents, I decline interference with the monthly
income fixed by the tribunal.
5.2. Pain and suffering - It is seen that though the
appellant claimed ₹1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, the tribunal
2025:KER:97635
..4..
awarded only ₹15,000/-. The impugned award reveals that the appellant
sustained pain on neck, right wrist & knee, tenderness in right wrist
posterior, oedema + readiness + hypoanesthesian medial nerve
distribution. CT scan brain showed small haemorrhagic contusion
bilateral basifrontal, small ventricles and partly effaced sulci.
Considering the injuries sustained by him and the sufferings that he had
undergone, I am inclined to grant an amount of ₹25,000/- to the
appellant as total compensation towards pain and suffering. Thus, the
appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of ₹10,000/- as
compensation towards pain and suffering.
5.3. Loss of amenities - On a perusal of the impugned
award, it is seen that the tribunal awarded only an amount of ₹6,000/-
towards loss of amenities. However, it appears that the tribunal
awarded compensation under the heads, permanent disability and loss
of earning power, which amounts to duplication. Considering the above
fact, though the compensation of ₹6,000/- awarded towards loss of
amenities appears to be on the lower side, I am not inclined to interfere
with the same.
6. Since the appeal is of the year 2015, I fix interest on
the enhanced compensation @ 7% per annum from the date of the claim
2025:KER:97635
..5..
petition till realization.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned
award is modified, awarding the appellant an additional compensation
of ₹10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand 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.
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
bka/-
