Kerala High Court

Mr.Santhosh vs Mr.Sinil Sekhar P on 21 July, 2025

M.A.C.A. No.359 of 2020
                                           1


                                                                    2025:KER:54037

                 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. 359 OF 2020

           AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 20.09.2019 IN OP(MV)NO.506 OF

2016       ON   THE   FILE   OF   THE    MOTOR    ACCIDENTS   CLAIMS    TRIBUNAL,

IRINJALAKUDA.

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
          MR.SANTHOSH,
          AGED 48 YEARS,
          S/O.APPUKUTTAN, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
          PARAPULLY BAZAR DESOM, LOKAMALESWARAM VILLAGE,
          KODUNGALLUR.P.O, THRISSUR, PIN-680 664.


                BY ADV SRI.V.BINOY RAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
     1    MR.SINIL SEKHAR P.,
          S/O.SEKHARAN P.K., POONNATHARA HOUSE,
          MANNAM DESOM AND P.O., NORTH PARAVOOR,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 520.

       2        MR.NOUFAL SUBAIR.V.,
                S/O.SUBAIR, VYPPINKATTIL HOUSE, NEDUMKANAM DESOM,
                KARUMATHRA VILLAGE AND P.O,
                THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 123.

       3        THE MANAGER,
                NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., 2ND FLOOR, K.K.ABDU
                BUILDING, ROOM NO.IV/1145, VADAKKENADA, KODUNGALLUR,
                THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 664.

                BY ADV SHRI.SEBASTIAN VARGHESE(K/141/2000)
       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.359 of 2020
                                          2


                                                                  2025:KER:54037




                                 C.S.SUDHA, J.
                 ----------------------------------------------------
                           M.A.C.A. No.359 of 2020
                 ----------------------------------------------------
                    Dated this the 21st day of July, 2025

                                JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 (the Act) has been filed by the claim petitioner in O.P.(MV)

No.506/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

Irinjalakuda (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation

granted by Award dated 20/09/2019. The respondents herein are the

respondents in the petition. 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 21/02/2016 at

about 02:10 p.m., while he was riding motorcycle bearing registration

No. KL-47/D-6368 through Chandappura - Eriyad public road and

when he reached the place by name Abdulla road junction, car bearing

registration No.KL-42/E-2202 driven by the second respondent in a

rash and negligent manner knocked him down as a result of which he

2025:KER:54037

sustained grievous injuries. An amount of ₹10,00,000/- was claimed

as compensation under various heads.

3. The first respondent/owner and the second

respondent/driver remained ex parte.

4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement

admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part of the second

respondent/driver. It was also contended that the amount claimed was

excessive.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced

by either side. Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the claim

petitioner. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the respondents. Ext.X1

Medical Board report was also marked.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary

evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of

the second respondent/driver of the offending car resulting in the

incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹6,02,060/- together with

interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of

realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award,

2025:KER:54037

the claim petitioner has come up in appeal.

7. 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.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under

the following heads is challenged by the claim petitioner -

Notional income

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner

that the latter, a professional driver, was earning ₹30,000/- per month.

However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income as ₹8,000/- only

which is quite low and hence needs to be enhanced. He also relies on

the dictum in Manusha Sreekumar v. United India Insurance

Company Ltd., (2022) 17 SCC 321: AIR 2022 SC 5161. Per

contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third

respondent/insurer that in case the Court is inclined to accept the

argument of the claim petitioner that the income be enhanced, it may

be fixed according to the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager,

2025:KER:54037

Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236.

9.1. In Manusha Sreekumar (Supra), the deceased was

a self employed man, who is described by the Apex Court as a person,

who donned multiple hats so as to provide a comfortable living for his

family. It was alleged that the deceased was a fish vendor-cum-driver

earning at least ₹25,000/- per month. In support of the claim, various

documentary evidence was produced to prove his financial capacity,

which were- (i) course certificate showing that the deceased had

completed two years course in electronic mechanic trade; (ii) a job

training certificate at Sun Generic Cables Pvt. Ltd.; (iii) Passport of

the deceased indicating that he was earlier employed in the Sultanate

of Oman; (iv) a certificate to show that he was receiving rent from a

shop in the Municipal Market shopping complex; (v) a job offer letter

dated 11/12/2014 from the United Kingdom, offering the position of

Telecom Rigger; (vi) bank statements of the deceased and (vii)

certificate of Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Board.

The Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹17,500/- per month

(₹14,000/- + ₹3,500/- rent).

2025:KER:54037

9.2. In the case on hand, Ext.A8 driving licence and the

fact that the claim petitioner is a driver is not seen disputed.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstance of the case, I am of the

opinion that the notional income can be fixed at ₹13,000/- per month.

Loss of earnings

10. The materials on record show that the claim

petitioner sustained the following injuries:-

" 1. Proximal jejunal perforation with peritonitis.

2. Small contusion dorsal cortex of upper inter polar region of left kidney."

He was hospitalized for a period of 10 days. Therefore, taking into

account the nature of injuries sustained, in all probability, he might

have been unable to work for a period of 8 months and hence, he can

be granted an amount of ₹13,000/- x 8 months = ₹1,04,000/-.

10.1. The learned counsel for the claim petitioner also

challenges the compensation that has been awarded under the other

heads by the Tribunal. On going through the Award, I find that just

and reasonable compensation has been granted and therefore the

compensation awarded under the other heads does not require any

2025:KER:54037

enhancement.

11. The impugned Award is modified to the following

extent :

Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in No. claimed Awarded by appeal Tribunal 1 Loss of earnings ₹1,80,000/- ₹40,000/- ₹1,04,000/-

(₹13,000/- x 8 months) 2 Transportation ₹20,000/- ₹5,000/- ₹5,000/-

           expenses                                         (No modification)
     3     Damage to           ₹20,000/-       ₹2,000/-         ₹2,000/-
           clothing                                         (No modification)
     4     Extra               ₹30,000/-       ₹3,000/-         ₹3,000/-
           nourishment                                      (No modification)
     5      Bystander's        ₹40,000/-       ₹3,000/-         ₹3,000/-
           expenses                                         (No modification)
     6     Medical            ₹3,00,000/-      ₹93,060/-        ₹93,060/-
           expenses                                         (No modification)
     7     Pain and           ₹2,00,000/-     ₹80,000/-         ₹80,000/-
           suffering                                        (No modification)
     8     Permanent          ₹4,00,000/-     ₹3,36,000/-     ₹5,46,000/-
           disability and                                      (₹13,000/-
           loss of earning                                  x25/100x12x14 )
           power
     9     Loss of            ₹1,00,000/-     ₹40,000/-         ₹40,000/-
           amenities                                        (No modification)
           Total              ₹12,90,000/-    ₹6,02,060/-      ₹8,76,060/-
                              is limited to
                              ₹10,00,000/-

In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the

2025:KER:54037

compensation by a further amount of ₹2,74,000/- (total compensation

₹8,76,060/-, that is, ₹6,02,060/- granted by the Tribunal + ₹2,74,000/-

granted in appeal) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the

date of petition till date of realization and proportionate costs. The

third respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the compensation with

interest and costs before the Tribunal within a period of 60 days from

the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On deposit of the

compensation amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the

claim petitioner at the earliest in accordance with law after making

deductions, if any.