Sujo Varghese @ Suju Varghese vs Mujeeb *(Deleted)
2025 Latest Caselaw 1926 Ker

Kerala High Court

Sujo Varghese @ Suju Varghese vs Mujeeb *(Deleted) on 6 January, 2025

MACA.3647/2018




                                1
                                                  2025:KER:765

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR

    MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 16TH POUSHA, 1946

                      MACA NO. 3647 OF 2018

         AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 11.04.2018 IN OPMV NO.1402 OF

2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PERUMBAVOOR

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

            SUJO VARGHESE @ SUJU VARGHESE
            AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE,
            CHITTAYAM HOUSE, PAYYAL KARA,
            ASAMANNOOR VILLAGE, ODAKKALY KAVALA,
            ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.


            BY ADVS.
            P.P.BIJU
            SRI.ANISH PAUL


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

     1      MUJEEB (DELETED)
            S/O.HAMSA, KARUTHAKUNHALINTE HOUSE,
            THRIKKAVU.P.O., PONNANI,
            MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 577.
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

     2      K.K. KUNJIRAMAN (DELETED)
            S/O. KUNJANKUTTAN, KARIMBUMKALA HOUSE,
            CHERUKUNNAMKARA, ASAMANNOOR VILLAGE,
            ERNAKULAM - 683 549.
 MACA.3647/2018




                                2
                                               2025:KER:765

     3      RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
            REP.BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,REG.OFFICE:19,
            RELIANCE CENTRE, WALCHAND HIRACHAND MARG,
            BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI 400 001.

            (RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE REMOVED FROM THE PARTY
            ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 02/12/2024 IN IA 1/2024
            IN MACA 3647/2018)


            BY ADVS.
            MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
            P.JACOB MATHEW, STANDING COUNSEL, R3



      THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FIANLY
HEARD ON 06.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 MACA.3647/2018




                                    3
                                                        2025:KER:765



                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6th day of January, 2025

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.)No.1402/2013 on the file of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor is the appellant herein. The

respondents in the O.P. are the respondents herein. The petitioner filed

the above O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident that

occurred on 27.01.2013.

2. According to the petitioner, on 27.01.2013 at about 8.30

p.m., he was riding pillion on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-

40-F-4064 through the AM road. When it reached the Odackali Junction,

a car bearing registration No.KL-18-E-9669 driven by the 2 nd respondent

in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction dashed

against his motorcycle and as a result of which, he sustained serious

injuries. The 1st respondent is the owner, the 2nd respondent is the driver

and 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to

2025:KER:765

the him, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the

offending vehicle. Therefore, he filed the OP claiming a compensation

of Rs.32,83,000/-.

3. The 3rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement, admitting

the policy and disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the

offending vehicle. It was further contended that the accident occurred

due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle.

4. The evidence in the case consists of documentary evidence

Exts.A1 to A10 and Ext. C1.

5. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a

total compensation of Rs.10,84,193/-.

6. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this appeal.

7. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is just and reasonable?

8. Heard Sri. P.P. Biju, the learned Counsel appearing for the

2025:KER:765

appellant, and Sri.P. Jacob Mathew, learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd

respondent.

9. The Point: In this case the accident and valid policy of the

offending vehicle are admitted. Though in the written statement the 3 rd

respondent has contended that the accident occurred due to the

negligence of the rider of the motor cycle, at the time of arguments such

a contention was not taken. The petitioner has produced Ext.A4, copy of

final report involved in the crime registered against the driver of the

offending vehicle, in respect to the above accident. In the light of the

above final report, negligence on the part of the driver of the offending

vehicle stands proved. Therefore, the 3rd respondent, being the insurer, is

liable to pay the compensation, which is liable to be awarded against the

owner of the offending vehicle.

10. The petitioner was aged 32 years on the date of the accident,

on 27.1.2013. Petitioner claims that he is a marble worker earning

Rs.12,000/- per month. The Tribunal fixed his monthly income at

Rs.6,000/-. Since the petitioner failed to prove his income, in the light of

2025:KER:765

the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Ramachandrappa v. Manger, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.

Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], his notional income is liable to be fixed at

Rs.9,000/-.

11. The petitioner produced per Ext.C1 disability certificate

issued by the medical board, showing that he/she has a permanent

disability of 22% and it was accepted by the Tribunal.

12. Since, on the date of accident, he was aged 32 years, 40% of

his income is to be added towards future prospects, and the multiplier to

be applied is 16, as held in the decision in National Insurance Co.Ltd v

Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680].

13. In the above circumstances, compensation towards loss on

disability will come to Rs.5,32,224/-.

14. Towards loss of earnings, the Tribunal awarded a sum of

Rs.60,000/- being the income for a period of 10 months. Since his

notional income is enhanced to Rs.9,000/- per month, loss of earnings

will come to Rs.90,000/- (9000x10).