Kerala High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Adith Salim (Minor) on 21 July, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.348 of 2020
1
2025:KER:54032
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1947
MACA NO. 348 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 27.09.2019 IN OPMV NO.1026 OF
2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM.
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
KOTTAKKAL ARYA VAIDYASALA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD,
ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
ADITH SALIM (MINOR),
AGED 16 YEARS,
S/O.SALIM O.V., REP. BY FATHER AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN, SALIM O.V., S/O.VISWAN,
AGED 53 YEARS, ONIYATH HOUSE,
EROOR WEST P.O., TRIPUNITHURA, NADAMA VILLAGE,
KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682306.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP
SMT.T.MANASY
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 21.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.348 of 2020
2
2025:KER:54032
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.348 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of July 2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the third
respondent/insurer in O.P.(MV) No.1026/2016 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam (the Tribunal),
aggrieved by Award dated 27/09/2019. The sole respondent
herein is the claim petitioner. In this appeal, the parties and the
documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.
2. According to the claim petitioner, on
09/01/2016 at 06:50 p.m., while he was pillion riding on
motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-39-H-3685 through Eroor
- Tripunithura road and when he reached near S.N.Junction,
motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-07-R-2699 ridden by the
first respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorbike
in which he was travelling, as a result of which he fell down and
2025:KER:54032
sustained grievous injuries.
3. The first respondent-owner cum rider of the
offending vehicle filed written statement denying negligence
alleged against him.
4. The second respondent-insured of the offending
motorcycle remained ex-parte.
5. The third respondent-insurer filed written
statement admitting the policy but denying negligence on the part
of the first respondent. The averments in the petition regarding
age, injuries and the period of treatment of the claim petitioner
were disputed. The amount of compensation claimed under
various heads was contended to be exorbitant.
6. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was
adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A10 and X1 were marked on
the side of the claim petitioner. No oral or documentary evidence
was adduced by the respondents.
7. The Tribunal on consideration of the
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found
negligence on the part of the first respondent-rider of the
2025:KER:54032
offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an
amount of ₹6,86,305/- together with interest @ 9% per annum
from the date of the petition till realisation along with
proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the third
respondent/insurer has come up in appeal.
8. The only point that arises for consideration in
this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the
Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.
9. Heard both sides.
10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
third respondent/insurer that in the light of the dictum in Master
Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance
Co.Ltd., 2014 (14) SCC 396 :AIR 2014 SC 736, the amount of
compensation that the claim petitioner was entitled under the head
pain and suffering, physical shock, hardship, inconvenience,
discomfort etc. and loss of amenities on account of permanent
disability was ₹3,00,000/-. However, the Tribunal granted an
amount of ₹5,00,000/- that is, ₹ 1,00,000/- towards compensation
for pain and suffering; ₹3,00,000/- towards compensation for
2025:KER:54032
disfiguration and disability and ₹1,00,000/- towards compensation
for loss of amenities and comforts. This is wrong in the light of
the settled principle and hence the same needs to be rectified.
10.1. In the light of the aforesaid dictum, the
maximum amount that the claim petitioner is entitled to is
₹3,00,000/-. Therefore, the amount of ₹1,00,000/- each awarded
under the heads compensation for pain and suffering and for loss
of amenities and comforts over and above the amount of
₹3,00,000/- granted shall stand deducted.
11. The impugned Award is modified to the
following extent:
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in
No. claimed Awarded by appeal
Tribunal
(in ₹) (in ₹) (in ₹)
1. Transport to 3,000/- 5,000/- 5,000/-
hospital and back (No modification)
to home
2. Attendant 15,000/- 7,650/- 7,650/-
expenses (No modification)
3. Extra nourishment 10,000/- 20,000/- 20,000/-
(No modification)
4. Damage to clothes 2,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/-
and articles (No modification)
5. Treatment 1,75,000/- 1,52,655/- 1,52,655/-
expenses (No modification)
2025:KER:54032
6. Compensation for 40,000/- 1,00,000/- deducted
pain and
sufferings
7. Compensation for 2,00,000/- 3,00,000/- 3,00,000/-
disfiguration and (No modification)
disability
8. Compensation for 25,000/- 0 Nil
future treatment (No modification)
9. Compensation for 30,000/- 100,000/- deducted
loss of amenities
and comforts
Total 5,00,000/- 6,86,305/- 4,86,305/-
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by deducting
the compensation by an amount of ₹2,00,000/- (total
compensation = ₹4,86,305/-, that is, ₹6,86,305/- granted by the
Tribunal minus ₹2,00,000 /- deducted in appeal).
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
Jms
