Kerala High Court
Arun vs Paul on 30 July, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.223 of 2020
1
2025:KER:56507
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 223 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 24.01.2019 IN OPMV NO.1630 OF
2007 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
THRISSUR.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ARUN
AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O. CHACKO,
RESIDING AT WARIAT HOUSE,
MUKKANNUR P. O.,
ANKAMALY,
ERNAKULAM - 683 577.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
SRI.P.S.APPU
SRI.A.R.NIMOD
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 PAUL,
S/O. PAILY,
RESIDING AT PULIKOTTIL HOUSE,
MRG GARDEN, KUTTANELLUR P. O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680 014.
2 THANKAM DAVIS,
RESIDING AT ALAPPAT HOUSE,
PURANATTUKARA P. O.,
THRISSUR - 680 551.
M.A.C.A.No.223 of 2020
2
2025:KER:56507
3 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
2ND FLOOR, AMBIKA ARCADE,
M. G. ROAD, THRISSUR - 680 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
BY ADVS.
SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 30.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.223 of 2020
3
2025:KER:56507
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.223 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of July 2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the claim petitioner in
O.P.(MV) No.1630/2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Thrissur (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the
amount of compensation granted by Award dated 24/01/2019.
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
28/09/2006 at 12:15 a.m., while he was pillion riding on
motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-06-6554 through Thrissur-
Jubilee Mission Medical College Hospital and when he reached
the place by name Fathima Nagar, car bearing registration
no.KRH/4145 driven by the first respondent in a rash and
2025:KER:56507
negligent manner knocked him down, as a result of which he
sustained grievous injuries.
3. The first respondent-driver and second
respondent-owner of the offending car remained ex-parte.
4. 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, hospitalisation and income of the claim petitioner
were disputed.
5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and
Exts.A1 to A11 and X1 were marked on the side of the claim
petitioner. Exts.B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the third
respondent.
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 vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an
amount of ₹19,50,100/- together with interest @ 8% per annum
2025:KER:56507
from the date of the petition till realisation along with
proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, 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 22 year old was a staff nurse and
therefore the income fixed by the Tribunal as ₹5,000/- is on the
lower side and hence needs to be enhanced. Per contra, it is
submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer
that the monthly income claimed is only ₹5,500/-. Therefore, if
this Court is inclined to enhance it, it may be fixed according to
the amount that is claimed in the petition.
2025:KER:56507
9.1. In the light of the pleadings and the testimony of
PW1, the notional income of the claim petitioner is fixed as
₹5,500/- per month.
Percentage of disability
10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
claim petitioner that in the light of Ext.X1, the functional
disability ought to have been fixed as 100%. The Tribunal erred
in assessing the disability as 90% only and hence the same aspect
needs to be interfered with.
10.1. The materials on records show that the claim
petitioner sustained the following injuries-
"Multiple lacerated wound over right shoulder, lacerated
wound over right forehead and neck, fracture clavicle right
and D8 vertebra with parapligia."
10.2. Ext.X1 report of the Medical Board reads thus-
"MEDICAL REPORT
Mr. Arun. S/o Chacko, Liariat House, Mukkannur, Angamaly,
Ernakulam was examined by the Medical Board on 23.06.2016 at
Government Medical College, Thrissur.
2025:KER:56507
The Following Members were Present:
1. Dr. Shaji Abharam, Deputy Superintendent :Chairman
2. Dr. Sherry Isaac, Addl. Prof. of Ortho : Member
3. Dr. C.V. Krishnakumar, R.M.O : Member
Arun 32 yrs Male was assessed to ascertain physical disabilities
following on alleged road accident on 28-09-2006.
He had sustained a traumatic fracture D8 with cord transaction
paraplegia and fracture right clavicle.
On examination on 23-6-2016 he has spastic paraplegia with
level D7 below (Sensory and motor), Absent bowel and bladder
control with malunited fracture right clavicle. Weak abduction
right shoulder. He also has a chronic decubitus ulcer ingluted area.
Based on the above he is assessed to have a permanent physical
disability of 75% (Seventy five percent) as per McBride disability
evaluation scale."
(Emphasis supplied)
10.3. The claim petitioner was produced before the
Tribunal on a stretcher. The materials on record show that the
claim petitioner is completely bedridden and that he requires
assistance of a third person for even carrying out his primary
duties. In these circumstances, the functional disability has to be
fixed as 100%. The claim petitioner was 22 years at the time of
the incident. As the disability has been assessed as 100%, 40% of
2025:KER:56507
the income is liable to be added while computing compensation
for loss of future prospects. Therefore, the compensation towards
permanent disability would be 16,63,200/-, that is, ₹5,500/- +
(40% x 5,500/-) x 12x 18 x 100% .
Pain and suffering.
11. An amount of ₹5,00,000/- was claimed. The
Tribunal granted an amount of ₹1,00,000/-. In the light of the
dictum in Benson George v. Reliance General Insurance
Co.Ltd, (2022) 13 SCC 142, an amount of ₹10,00,000/- is
awarded under this head.
Personal Assistance
12. An amount of ₹50,000/- was claimed. The
Tribunal has granted the said amount also. However, as the
disability is 100%, the compensation under this head will have to
be computed based on the multiplier system. Hence the
compensation that he would be entitled under this head would
11,88,000/-, that is, ₹5,500/- x 12 x 18.
2025:KER:56507
Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life
13. An amount of ₹4,69,000/- was claimed. The
Tribunal granted an amount of ₹50,000/-. In the light of the
dictum in Benson George (Supra) and as the disability is 100%,
an amount of ₹10,00,000/- is awarded under this head.
14. 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. Loss of earnings 66,000/- 60,000/- 66,000/-
(5,500/- x 12)
2. Medical 6,00,000/- 5,77,300/- 5,77,300/-
expenses (No modification)
3. Bystander - 4,800/- 4,800/-
expenses (No modification)
4. Transportation 10,000/- 25,000/- 25,000/-
expenses (No modification)
5. Extra 20,000/- 10,000/- 10,000/-
nourishment (No modification)
6. Damage to 1,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/-
clothing etc. (No modification)
7. Pain and 5,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 10,00,000/-
suffering (1,00,000/- +
9,00,000)
2025:KER:56507
8. Compensation 17,64,000/- 9,72,000/- 16,63,200/-
for continuing or ( wrongly shown [5,500/- +(40% x
in the Award as 5,500/-) x 12 x 18
permanent 1,76,40,000/-) x 100%]
disability and
loss of earning
capacity
9. Compensation 3,00,000/- - Nil
for the loss of (No
earning power modification)
10. Loss of 4,69,000/- 50,000/- 10,00,000/-
amenities and (50,000/- +
enjoyment of 9,50,000/-)
life
11. Personal 50,000/- 50,000/- 11,88,000/-
assistance (5,500/- x 12 x
18)
12. Future treatment 5,00,000/- - Nil
(No modification)
13. Compensation 7,20,000/- 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/-
for marriage (No modification)
prospects
Total
claim limits to 50,00,000/- 19,50,100/- 56,35,300/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹36,85,200/- (total
compensation = ₹56,35,300/- that is, ₹19,50,100/- granted by the
Tribunal + ₹36,85,200/- 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 72 days delay in filing the appeal) and
proportionate costs. The third respondent/insurer is directed to
2025:KER:56507
deposit the aforesaid amount before the Tribunal within a period
of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On
deposit of the 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
Jms
