Kerala High Court
P.P.Mathew @ Mathachan vs Paramasivam.R on 24 February, 2025
MACA NO. 3091 OF 2014
1
2025:KER:16268
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1946
MACA NO. 3091 OF 2014
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 04.07.2014 IN OPMV NO.962 OF 2011 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS :-
1 P.P.MATHEW @ MATHACHAN
S/O.PAULOSE,PULIKKALAYIL
HOUSE,KADALIKKADAU,MANJALLOOR VILLAGE.
*2 ADDL.APPELLANTS 2 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED :-
PHILOMINA MATHEW, W/O LATE P.P.MATHEW,
PULIKKALAYIL HOUSE,KADALIKKADU, MANJALLOOR VILLAGE
3 SIMI JOHN, D/O LATE P.P.MATHEW, AGED 46 YEARS
PULIKKALAYIL HOUSE,KADALIKKADU,
MANJALLOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN-686670
4 SEEMA ANAND, D/O LATE P.P.MATHEW, AGED 45 YEARS
PULIKKALAYIL HOUSE,KADALIKKADU, MANJALLOOR VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM, PIN-686670
5 SOMY MATHEW, S/O LATE P.P.MATHEW, AGED 43 YEARS
PULIKKALAYIL HOUSE,KADALIKKADU, MANJALLOOR VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM, PIN-686670
*ADDL.APPELLANTS 2 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 24.02.2025 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2025.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.K.KOSHY
V.V.RISANI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 :-
1 PARAMASIVAM.R., S/O.RATHINASAMY,4/22,
SIVA SAKHI NAGAR 2ND STREET,
KNHS SCHOOL MAIN ROAD, TRIPUR.
MACA NO. 3091 OF 2014
2
2025:KER:16268
2 ARJUNAN.N.,S/O.NARAYANASWAMY,
ANDIYAPALAYAM,RAMAPURAM,CUDALORE.
3 ROYAL SUNDRAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO.LTD.
4TH FLOOR THIRUMALAI TOWERS 723
AVANASHI ROAD COIMBATORE-641
4 RADHA GOPINATH
TC 29/1919(1),MAMPALLY
LANE,PULIMOOD,TRIVANDRUM,PIN-695 001.
5 DASSAYAN M.C.SO.CHELLAYAN
KARIKULAMPUTHUVEL HOUSE,PUTHUPARIYARAM.P.O.,
THODUPUZHA,PIN-685 584
6 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
MYDHILY MANDIRAM JANATA JUNCTION
PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25
BY ADVS.
GEORGE A.CHERIAN
MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
M.D.GANGADHARAN
GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)(G-81)
SOUMYA FRANCIS(K/000605/2020)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 24.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 3091 OF 2014
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.962/2011 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, is the appellant herein. (For the
purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank
before the Tribunal) .
2. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a
motor vehicle accident that occurred on 20.09.2011. According to the petitioner,
on 20.09.2011 at about 03.00 p.m., while he was standing on the veranda of his
shop, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-60/E 8737 driven by the 2 nd
respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on a pickup van bearing
Registration No.KL-01/Y 9616 driven by the 5th respondent which was moving
infront of the lorry. As a result of which, the 5th respondent lost control on the
pickup van and hit against the petitioner and his shop building. Thereby, he
sustained injuries and also sustained damage to his shop building.
3. Respondents 1 and 3 are the registered owner and insurer of the
lorry and respondents 4 and 6 are the registered owner and insurer of the pickup
van. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of
the driver of the offending vehicles. The quantum of compensation claimed in
MACA NO. 3091 OF 2014
2025:KER:16268
the O.P. is Rs.9,00,000/-.
4. The insurance companies filed a written statement, admitting the
accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the
driver of the offending vehicles.
5. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence
Exts.A1 to 12.
6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicles, awarded a total
compensation of Rs.7,44,407/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.
7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this appeal.
8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just
and reasonable?
9. Heard Sri.T.K.Koshy, the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner/appellant, Sri.P.Jacob Mathew, the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the 3rd respondent and Sri.George A Cherian, the learned
Sanding Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent.
10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the
offending vehicle are admitted. One of the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is regarding income of the petitioner fixed by the
MACA NO. 3091 OF 2014
2025:KER:16268
Tribunal at Rs.4,000/-. From Exts.A10 and A11, it is revealed that the
petitioner was running a provision store during the relevant period. As per the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Ramachandrappa
v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC
236], notional income of a coolie during the year 2011 will come to
Rs.8,000/-. In the above circumstance, considering the fact hat the petitioner
was running a provision store, his notional income is fixed at Rs.9,000/-.
11. In the accident the petitioner sustained comminuted fracture
tibula, fracture tibia segmental comminuted. Left leg of the petitioner below
knee was amputatd on 22.09.2011.
12. Since the petitioner's left leg below the knee was amputated, his
permanent physical disability was assessed by the Tribunal at 50%, which is
not under challenge.
13. On the date of accident, the petitioner was aged 62 years.
Therefore, the petitioner is not entilted to get future prospects, as held in the
decision in National Insurance Co.Ltd v Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]
and the multiplier to be applied is 7, as held in Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. In the above circumstances, the
loss of disability will come to Rs.3,78,000/-.
14. Towards loss of earning, the tribunal has awarded only
Rs.36,000/- being the income for 9 months @Rs.4,000/-. Since the notional
MACA NO. 3091 OF 2014
2025:KER:16268
income of the petitioner is re-fixed at Rs.9,000/-, towards loss of earning he is
entitled to get a sum of Rs.81,000/- (9,000 x 9 months).
15. Towards the head 'pain and sufferings', the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.40,000/-. Towards 'loss of amenities of life' Rs.30,000/- was
awarded, towards 'extra nourishment' Rs.4,000/-, and towards 'bystander
expenses' Rs.5,100/- was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the compensation awarded on those heads are on the lower side.
16. Since the petitioner sustained very serious injuries and his left
leg below the knee was amputated, I hold that the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal on the heads 'pain and sufferings', 'loss of amenities of life',
'extra nourishment' and 'bystander expenses' are on the lower side and hence
they are enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.10,000/-,
Rs.10,000/- respectively.
17. According to the learned counsel the Tribunal has not awarded
any compensation towards cost of artificial limb. On the other hand, the
learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.75,000/- towards the cost of an artificial limb and Rs.14,100/-
awarded towards the price of its socket. However, as argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the artificial limb is to be changed periodically at
least once in 5 years, and as such, towards the cost of the artificial limb, a
consolidated sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- is awarded in addition to what is awarded
MACA NO. 3091 OF 2014
2025:KER:16268
by the Tribunal.
18. According to the petitioner towards the cost of repair of the
shop room, the petitioner had to spent Rs.35,000/-. In order to substantiate the
same, the petitioner has produced Ext.A12 which is an estimate issue by a
firm. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.15,000/- towards damage to shop
building on the ground that the petitioner has not produced survey report to
prove the damages. Considering the facts, I hold that towards cost of repairing
shop, the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.25,000/-.
19. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads,
as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable.
20. Therefore, the petitioner/appellant is entitled to get a total
compensation of Rs.16,98,307/-, as modified and recalculated above and given
in the table below, for easy reference.
Sl. Amount awarded by Amount
No. Head of Claim
Tribunal Awarded in
(in Rs.) Appeal
(in Rs.)
1 Loss of earning 36,000 81,000
2 Pain and sufferings 40,000 1,00,000
3 Loss of amenities 30,000 1,00,000
4 Bystander expenses 5,100 10,000
5 Extra nourishment charges 4,000 10,000
MACA NO. 3091 OF 2014
2025:KER:16268
6 Tansportation charges 2,000 2,000
7 Medical treatment charges 4,92,307 4,92,307
8 Compensation for permanent 1,20,000 3,78,000
disability
10 Damage to shop building 15,000 25,000
11 Cost of artificial limb Nil 5,00,000
Total 7,44,407 16,98,307
Enhanced/reduced 9,53,900
21. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and the respondents
3 and 6 are directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.16,98,307/- (Rupees Sixteen
Lakh Ninety Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Seven Only), in the ratio
60:40, less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest @ 8% per
annum, from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, with proportionate
costs, within a period of two months from today.
22. On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse
the entire amount to the petitioner, excluding court fee payable, if any, without
delay, as per rules.
Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR,
JUDGE
SMA
MACA NO. 3091 OF 2014
2025:KER:16268
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A ANNEXURE A:ORIGINAL PAN CARD BEARING NO:
CBAPM9408H
Annexure B ANNEXURE B: ORIGINAL AADHAR CARD BEARING
NO.757188675744
Annexure C ORIGINAL PHOTOGRAPH OF AMPUTATED LEG
Annexure D ORIGINAL PHOTOGRAPH OF AMPUTATED LEG WITH
PROSTHESIS
