Kerala High Court
Dhanan vs Mel John on 21 July, 2025
M.A.C.A. No.355 of 2020
1
2025:KER:54036
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. 355 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 15.10.2019 IN OP(MV)NO.863 OF
2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
IRINJALAKUDA.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER
DHANAN,
AGED 44 YEARS,
S/O.BAHULEYAN, ANAKKATHIL HOUSE, METHALA DESOM,
METHALA VILLAGE, KANDANKULAM P.O.,
KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 669.
BY ADV SRI.V.BINOY RAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 MELJOHN,
S/O.VARGHESE, MANJALY HOUSE, VENDOOR DESOM,
AMBALLUR VILLAGE, ALAGAPPANAGAR.P.O,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 302.
2 THE MANAGER,
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE-II, TRICHUR TRADE CENTRE,
KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.HARIKUMAR
SHRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL
SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,UNITED INDIA INSU
SRI.RENJITH RAJAPPAN
SHRI.ANAND GOKULDAS
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.355 of 2020
2
2025:KER:54036
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.355 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.863/2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Irinjalakuda (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation
granted by Award dated 15/10/2019. 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 19/05/2018 at
about 09:00 a.m., while he was riding motorcycle bearing registration
No. KL-07-BG-1598 through Amballur-Varandarappilly public road
and when he reached the place by name Vendoor, car bearing
registration No.KL-64-B-7077 driven by the first respondent in a rash
and negligent manner knocked him down as a result of which he
sustained grievous injuries. An amount of ₹4,00,000/- was claimed as
2025:KER:54036
compensation under various heads.
3. The first respondent/owner-cum-driver remained ex
parte.
4. The second respondent/insurer filed written
statement admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part of
the first respondent/driver. The age, occupation and income were
disputed. It was also contended that the amount claimed was
excessive.
5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 and PW2 was examined
and Exts.A1 to A18 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner.
No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents.
Ext.X1 case record is also marked.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence
on the part of the first respondent/driver of the offending car resulting
in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹2,35,650/- 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, the claim petitioner has come up in appeal.
2025:KER:54036
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, an artist was earning ₹25,000/- per month. However,
the Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹10,000/-, which even going
by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236 is quite low and hence needs to
be enhanced. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
second respondent/insurer that the income fixed is quite reasonable
and that it does not call for any interference.
9.1. In the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa
(Supra), the notional income of the claim petitioner is fixed at
₹11,500/- per month.
2025:KER:54036
Loss of earnings
10. The materials on record show that the claim
petitioner sustained the following injuries:-
"1. Focal contusion of left posterior temporal cortex with
fracture of anterior, posterior and lateral maxillary
wall.
2. Fracture left zygomatic arch.
3. Focal hemorrhagic contusion in left posterior
temporal lobe."
In the light of the injuries, which include fractures also, in all
probability, he might have been unable to work for a period of 4
months. Therefore, the amount to which he would be entitled is
₹11,500 /- x 4 months = ₹46,000/-.
Bystander's expenses
11. An amount of ₹30,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal
granted an amount of ₹900/-. The materials on record show that he
was hospitalized for a period of 3 days. The accident took place on
19/05/2018. Therefore, granting compensation at the rate of ₹550/-
per day for a period of 3 days would be just and reasonable, that is,
₹550/- x 3 days = ₹1,650/-.
2025:KER:54036
Percentage of disability
12. The learned counsel for the claim petitioner
submitted that as per Exhibit A15 disability certificate, the percentage
of disability that has been fixed by the doctor is 9% and therefore, the
Tribunal was not justified in scaling down the percentage of disability
and fixing it as 5%. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the second respondent/insurer that in the light of the
injuries sustained, the disability fixed by the Tribunal is correct and
therefore it does not call for any interference.
13. Exhibit A15 Disability Certificate reads thus:
" Disability certificate
This is to certify that Mr. Dhanan A b, s/o Bahuleyan,
Anakkathil House, Kandamkulam P. O, Kodungallur has
been examined by me on 13/08/19 for assessment of
permanent disability, on careful physical examination,
examination of wound certificate, discharge summaries, CT
scan reports I have noticed the following.
1. He was involved in a road traffic accident on 19/05/18
2. He had sustained following injuries.
a. Fracture of left maxillary sinus & left zygomatic arch
with inward displacement.
3. He was seen at Modern Hospital, Kodungallur where he
was admitted and treated as inpatient on 19.05.2018 for
conservative management of fractures. Patient was
discharged on 22.05.2018.
2025:KER:54036
4. At present He has following problem
a. Facial asymmetry
b. Numbness over left cheek
c. Reduced chewing ability over front teeth
5. Functionally He has following difficulties
a. Difficulty to fully open mouth
b. Difficulty to chew hard food.
6. From all the above examination findings he has following
permanent disabilities.
a. Facial asymmetry
b. Reduced chewing ability
7. His permanent disability as per Mcbrides guidelines is
calculated as follows
a. Aesthetic loss due to soft tissue/skeletal damage-9%
8. From all the above examination findings, He is assessed
to be having a permanent disability of 9% (nine percentage)
to his whole body as per Mc Bride's guidelines."
PW2 the doctor who issued Ext.A15 was also examined. Ext.A15
disability certificate shows that it is 9% permanent disability that has
been caused to the whole body. In the light of the avocation of the
claim petitioner, that is, he stated to be an artist, 5% disability fixed as
the functional disability in the light of the dictum in Raj Kumar v.
Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, appears to be just and reasonable
and hence I do not find any grounds for interference.
2025:KER:54036
14. 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 ₹1,50,000/- ₹30,000/- ₹46,000/-
(₹11,500/- x 4
months)
2 Transportation ₹20,000/- ₹3,000/- ₹3,000/-
expenses (No modification)
3 Extra ₹20,000/- ₹2,000/- ₹2,000/-
nourishment (No modification)
4 Damage to ₹20,000/- ₹2,000/- ₹2,000/-
clothing (No modification)
5 Bystander's ₹30,000/- ₹900/- ₹1,650/-
expenses (₹550/- x 3 days)
6 Medical ₹1,00,000/- ₹23,724/- ₹23,724/-
expenses (No modification)
7 Pain and ₹1,00,000/- ₹60,000/- ₹60,000/-
suffering (No modification)
8 Permanent -- ₹84,000/- ₹96,600/-
disability (₹11,500/-
x5/100x12x14 )
9 Loss of earning ₹2,00,000/- -- --
power (No modification)
10 Loss of ₹1,00,000/- ₹30,000/- ₹30,000/-
amenities (No modification)
11 Anticipated ₹50,000/- -- --
Medical (No modification)
Expenses
Total ₹7,90,000/- ₹2,35,624/- ₹2,64,974/-
is limited to rounded off
₹4,00,000/- ₹2,35,650/-
2025:KER:54036
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹29,324/- (total compensation is
₹2,64,974/-, that is, ₹2,35,650/- granted by the Tribunal + ₹29,324/-
granted in appeal) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the
date of petition till date of realization (excluding the period of 39
days delay in filing the appeal) and proportionate costs. The second
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.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
SD/-
C.S. SUDHA
JUDGE
ak
