Kerala High Court
Abu Hassan vs The Divisional Manager on 13 February, 2025
2025:KER:12258
M.A.C.A No.1571 of 2018 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 24TH MAGHA, 1946
MACA NO. 1571 OF 2018
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 22.09.2017 IN OP(MV) NO.1298
OF 2015 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM
APPELLANT/2ND PETITIONER:
ABU HASSAN, AGED 18 YEARS,
S/O. NAVAS, 'ABOOS',GREESHMA NAGAR -
145,KOOTTIKKADA P.O,
KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 012.
BY ADVS.
SRI.PRATHEESH.P
SMT.RENY ANTO
RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD,
3RD PARTY CLAIM HUB, ST. MARY'S VILLA,
ULLOOR MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.
BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 13.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:12258
M.A.C.A No.1571 of 2018 2
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the petitioner in O.P. (MV) No,1298/2015
on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam.
2. The said claim petition was filed seeking compensation
for the injuries sustained to the petitioner's minor son in a
motor accident that occurred on 28.12.2013.
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows.
On 28.12.2013 at about 5.45 P.M while the petitioner's
minor son, was pedaling a bicycle through a public road, a car
bearing Registration KL-01Q-3550 which came from the same
direction driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent
manner hit on the bicycle pedaled by the petitioner's son. Due
to the impact of the hit, the petitioner's minor son fell down to
the road, causing severe injuries to him.
4. The owner cum driver of the offending car was arrayed
as 1st respondent and the insurer of the said car was arrayed as
the 2nd respondent in the petition. The 2nd respondent, the
insurer, filed written statement mainly disputing the amount of
compensation claimed in the petition despite admitting
2025:KER:12258
insurance coverage for the car involved in the accident.
5. During the trial, the documents produced from the side
of the petitioner were marked as Ext.A1 to A9. On the side of
the respondent, no evidence, whatsoever, was produced.
6. After trial, the tribunal entered into a finding that, the
accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of
the 1st respondent, the owner cum driver of the car bearing
Registration No. KL-01Q-3550 and the 2nd respondent, being the
insurer of the car, was held liable to pay the compensation. The
compensation was fixed at Rs. 34,340/- with 7% interest per
annum from the date of petition till realisation and with
proportionate costs. Being dissatisfied with the compensation
awarded by the tribunal, the petitioner has come up with this
appeal.
7. Heard Sri. Pratheesh P., the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant and Sri.Mathew George Vadakkel, the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent.
8. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit
that the compensation awarded under various heads by the
2025:KER:12258
tribunal is too meager and will not commensurate with the
nature of injuries sustained in the accident. The learned Counsel
for the appellant further urged that the amount awarded under
the head of pain and suffering is on the lower side when
compared with the nature of the injuries sustained and the
treatment procedures undergone by the injured. Moreover, the
learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that, at the time of
the accident, the injured was a minor, and considering the
injuries including the fracture sustained by him, a reasonable
amount ought to have been awarded by the tribunal under the
head of loss of amenities especially when no amount is awarded
under the head of loss of earnings as well as under the head of
permanent disability. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the
2nd respondent, the insurance company would submit that the
compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads is
appropriate and reasonable. According to the counsel, sufficient
reasons are assigned by the Tribunal for the amount awarded
under each head and hence, no interference is warranted in this
case.
2025:KER:12258
9. From the rival contentions raised, it is gatherable
that, the main dispute that revolves around in this appeal is
with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by the
tribunal under various heads. Admittedly, the appellant was a
14 year old student at the time of the accident. From Ext.A6
and A7 treatment records, it is evident that the petitioner had
sustained a fracture on his right wrist, in the accident.
Undisputedly, while awarding compensation, the nature of the
injuries assumes much significance. From a perusal of the
impugned award, it is gatherable that, under the head of pain
and suffering only an amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded. I am
of the considered view that, the said amount is a little bit on a
lower side. As already stated the injuries sustained by the
petitioner are not trivial in nature but rather grievous.
Therefore, the pain and suffering endured by the injured cannot
be overlooked while awarding compensation under the head of
pain and suffering. I am of the view that, an additional amount
of Rs. 15,000/- has to be awarded under the head of pain and
suffering.
2025:KER:12258
10. Similarly, the nature of the injuries and the
treatment procedures undergone by the petitioner cannot go
unnoticed while determining compensation under the head of
loss of amenities. In the case at hand, only a nominal amount
of Rs.10,000/- is seen awarded by the tribunal under the said
head. I am not unmindful of the fact that, under the said head
only an amount of Rs.10,000/- is claimed in the petition and it
was mainly taking note of the said fact that, the tribunal limited
the compensation under the head of loss of amenities to
Rs.10,000/-. However, it is trite that while deciding
compensation in a motor accident case, it is the duty of the
tribunal to ensure that, irrespective of the claim made by the
petitioner, the compensation awarded is just, fair, equitable, and
reasonable. Therefore, considering the inconveniences and
hardships caused to the injured due to the accident, I am of the
view that, an amount of Rs.25,000/- has to be awarded under
the head of loss of amenities. Hence the petitioner is found
entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs.15,000/- under
the head of loss of amenities.
2025:KER:12258
In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the
appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further
amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) (15000 +
15000) with interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the
enhanced compensation from the date of claim petition till the
date of deposit, after deducting interest for a period of 142
days, i.e., the period of delay in preferring this appeal and as
directed by this Court on 25.10.2023 in C.M.Appln.No.
1834/2018. The 2nd respondent, the insurance company is
ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest
before the tribunal with proportionate costs within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the
judgment.
SD/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
Cak
