Kerala High Court
Ranjith Mukundan vs Sudhakaran on 30 July, 2025
2025:KER:56548
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. 244 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 14.08.2019 IN OPMV NO.1537 OF
2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
RANJITH MUKUNDAN,
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O. MUKUNDHAN, AYINIPULLY HOUSE, MARUTHAYUR,
PAVARATTY P.O. PUTHUMANASSERY, THRISSUR.
SRI.P.G.SURESH
SMT.ASWATHY KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SUDHAKARAN,
S/O. VELAYUDHAN, VALA HOUSE, PAVARATTY P.O. ,
MARUTHAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 057.
2 RATHEESH.P.A,
S/O. ASHOKAN, PODIYADE HOUSE, ELAVALLY P.O.
THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 511.
3 THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
REPRESENTED THROUGH THE MANAGER, 2ND FLOOR,
GLOBAL PLAZA, OPP. NEW RAILWAY PLATFORM
VANCHIKULAM ROAD, P.O. POOTHOLE, THRISSUR 680 004.
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 30.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:56548
MACA NO. 244 OF 2020
2
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.244 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.1537/2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Thrissur, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation
granted by Award dated 14/08/2019. The respondents herein are
respondents 1 to 3 respectively in the petition. In this appeal, the
parties and documents will be referred to as described in the
original petition.
2. According to the claim petitioner, on 23/10/2012 at
01:00 p.m., while he was pillion riding on motorcycle bearing
registration no.KL-46/E-9663 through Mattom-Pavaratty public
road and when he reached the place by name Kadavallur,
2025:KER:56548
MACA NO. 244 OF 2020
autorickshaw bearing registration no.KL-46/G-4042 driven by the
second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him
down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. A sum of
₹8,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.
3. The first respondent/owner and the second
respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte.
4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement
admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending
vehicle. The age, occupation, income, etc. of the claim petitioner
were disputed. It was also contended that the compensation claimed
was quite excessive.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by
either side. Exts.A1 to A18 were marked on the side of the claim
petitioner. No documentary evidence was adduced by the third
respondent/insurer.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary
evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part
2025:KER:56548
MACA NO. 244 OF 2020
of the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle resulting in
the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹3,94,110/- together
with interest @ 8% per annum 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, who was working as Manager, Ram Industries,
Thrissur, was earning ₹18,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal
fixed the notional income only at ₹5,500/-, which is quite low and
hence the same needs to be enhanced. Per contra, it is submitted by
2025:KER:56548
MACA NO. 244 OF 2020
the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the amount
fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable and that in case this Court is
inclined to enhance the amount, the same may be in accordance
with the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236.
9.1. The claim petitioner, in order to substantiate his
allegation regarding income, has produced Ext.A17 salary
certificate seen issued by the Proprietor, Ram Industries, in which
the claim petitioner is stated to have been working as Manager.
However, the person who issued the certificate has not been
examined and therefore the Tribunal was right in not relying on
Ext.A17 and fixing the monthly income. Apart from Ext.A17, there
are no other materials before this Court to substantiate the
allegation of the claim petitioner regarding his income. That being
the position, going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), the
monthly income of the claim petitioner can be fixed at ₹8,500/-.
2025:KER:56548
MACA NO. 244 OF 2020
Multiplier
10. It is submitted by both sides that, as the age of the claim
petitioner at the time of the incident was 24 years, the correct
multiplier to be applied is 18. However, the Tribunal has wrongly
applied 17 as the multiplier. Therefore, the multiplier shall stand
corrected as 18.
Percentage of disability
11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim
petitioner that in the light of the injuries sustained, the disability
that has been assessed by the doctor as per Ext.A13 disability
certificate is 16.05% and therefore the Tribunal was not justified in
scaling down the percentage of disability. On the other hand, it is
submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer
that in the light of the injuries sustained and also the fact that the
certificate has been issued by a private doctor, the Tribunal was
justified in fixing the disability as 10% and that there is no infirmity
in the same.
2025:KER:56548
MACA NO. 244 OF 2020
11.1. The materials on record show that following injuries
were sustained by the claim petitioner:
"1) Grade II open super condylar fracture left femur
2) Comminuted patella fracture left knee etc."
11.2. Ext.A13 disability certificate seen issued by Consultant
Orthosurgeon, CCMK Hospital, Chalakudy reads thus:
"This is to certify that Mr.Ranjith, 27, S/o.Mukundan,
Iyanipally (H), P.O. Pavaratty, following alleged RTA
was admitted in Royal Hospital, Kunnamkulam as
Hosp.No.1213/020873 on 23/10/12 for a) fracture shaft
of Lt. femur compound (D3) with bone loss
b)comminuted fracture left patella and managed by
(a) Nailing of rt. femur and wiring of rt. patella and
discharged on 29/10/12. He was again admitted on
21/12/2012 for bone grafting and discharged on
24/12/2012. He was again admitted on 08/07/2013 in
Metropolitan Hospital, Thrissur, as IP no.2561/13 for
physiotherapy and discharged on 09/07/2013.
He was admitted on 04/11/13 for malunited super
condylar fracture left femur with shaft knee # and
managed by implant removal and Quadricepsplasty and
physiotherapy and discharged on 13/11/13. Now on
clinical and radiological examination, he is having
(a)malunited fracture of left femur with 25ᵒ
anteromedial angulation with partial bony fibrous union
(b) malunited fracture of the left patella with partial
bone loss
2025:KER:56548
MACA NO. 244 OF 2020
(c) limitation of flexion of left knee of 35% and
extension of 15% due to soft tissue fibrous and adhesion
and resultant partial ankylosis of left knee with coarse
amputation
(d) Weakness of left quadriceps of 30% and flexion of
left knee of 10% due to muscular tenderness injuries
(e) loss of soft tissue on the anteromedial aspect of left
thigh with thin, tender adherence, scar with contracture
at site
(f) shortening of 1 inch with limping.
Functionally he has got difficulty to squat, to sit cross
legged, to climb up and down, to run, to jump, to press,
pedal or kick with left foot, to stand on left leg or walk
for long.
He is assessed to have a permanent disability as per
National Guidelines for left lower limb as
(a) Mobility:
left knee: Rom 7.5% Strength 6%
Total 7.5 + 5.5 = 13%
(b) Stability: 20%
Total : 20 + 10.11 = 30.11%
(c) Extras: shortening
malunion = 2.00
Total for Lt. lower limb = 32.11%
He is assessed to have a permanent disability for
left lower limb as per National Guidelines as 32.11%
and whole body disability as 16.05% (sixteen point zero
five) only." (Emphasis supplied)
Going by the dictum in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1
SCC 343, it is the functional disability that needs to be assessed.
2025:KER:56548
MACA NO. 244 OF 2020
The claim petitioner is stated to be working in a managerial
position. Therefore, taking into account the nature of injuries
sustained and the disabilities caused, the percentage of functional
disability fixed by the Tribunal is justified and hence it does not call
for any interference.
Bystander expenses
12. The materials on record show that the claim petitioner
was hospitalized for a period of 7 days. The accident took place on
23/10/2012. Therefore, I find that bystander expenses at the rate of
₹250/- per day for a period of 7 days can be granted, which comes
to ₹1,750/-.
13. The impugned Award is modified to the following
extent:
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in
No. claimed Awarded by appeal
(in ₹) Tribunal (in ₹)
(in ₹)
1 Loss of earning 1,20,000/- 55,000/- 85,000/-
(5,500 x 10) (8,500 x 10)
2025:KER:56548
MACA NO. 244 OF 2020
2 Transportation 10,000/- 4,000/- 4,000/-
expenses (No Modification)
3 Damage to 2,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/-
clothings & (No Modification)
articles
4 Extra 10,000/- 5,000/- 5,000/-
nourishment (No Modification)
5 Medical expenses 1,60,000/- 1,32,510/- 1,32,510/-
(No Modification)
6 Future treatment 50,000/- Nil Nil
(No Modification)
7 Bystanders 10,500/- 1,400/- 1,750/-
expenses (250 x 7)
8 Personal 12,000/- 8,000/- 8,000/-
assistance (No Modification)
9 Pain and 1,00,000/- 45,000/- 45,000/-
suffering (No Modification)
10 Compensation for 4,00,000/- 1,12,200/- 1,83,600/-
continuing or (5,500 x 12 (8,500 x 12 x 18
permanent x17x10/100) x 10/100)
disability
11 Loss of earning 20,000/- Nil Nil
power (No Modification)
12 Disfigurement 40,000/- Nil Nil
(No Modification)
13 Loss of proper 50,000/- Nil Nil
marriage alliance (No Modification)
14 Loss of amenities 50,000/- 30,000/- 30,000/-
of life (No Modification)
Total 10,34,500/- 3,94,110/- 4,95,860/-
limited to
8,00,000/-
2025:KER:56548
MACA NO. 244 OF 2020
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹1,01,750/- (total
compensation ₹4,95,860/- that is, ₹3,94,110/- granted by the
Tribunal plus ₹1,01,750/- 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 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
NP
