Kerala High Court
Vrinda Bai vs Ashokan on 2 June, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.574 of 2020
1
2025:KER:38809
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1947
MACA NO. 574 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 29.05.2019 IN OPMV NO.2886 OF
2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MACT, ERNAKULAM.
APPELLANT/(CLAIMANT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL):
VRINDA BAI
AGED 58 YEARS
W/O GOVINDA PAI,C C 8/500,
OPP.T D HIGH SCHOOL,
CHERLAI,KOCHI-2.
BY ADV SRI.S.SACHITHANANDA PAI
RESPONDENTS/(RESPONDENTS IN THE TRIBUNAL):
1 ASHOKAN,
AGED 53 YEARS,
S/.O KARUPPAN, HOUSE NO.46/1626,
KUMBALASSERY HOUSE,VADUTHALA.P.O, KOCHI.23.
2 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,
JOYS BUILDING,PADMA JUNCTION,
M G ROAD,KOCHI.35,REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
BY ADV SMT.T.C.SOWMIAVATHY
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 02.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.574 of 2020
2
2025:KER:38809
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.574 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of June 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.2886/2016 on the file of the Additional Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam (the Tribunal), aggrieved
by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated
29/05/2019. 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
02/10/2016 at about 08:00 p.m, while she was pillion riding on a
motor cycle through the Mattancherry - Ernakulam road,
autorickshaw bearing registration no.KL-07/AB-825 driven by the
first respondent in a rash and negligent manner and in great speed
2025:KER:38809
dashed against the motor cycle, whereby she sustained grievous
injuries.
3. The first respondent driver filed written
statement contending that the accident was due to the negligence
of the husband of the claim petitioner, who was riding the motor
cycle.
4. The second respondent/insurer filed written
statement raising the following contentions - The amount claimed
is excessive. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the rider of the motor cycle, who had no valid driving
licence. There was no negligence on the part of the first
respondent and so the insurance company is not liable to
indemnify the same.
5. Before the Tribunal, the claim petitioner was
examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. No oral or
documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found
2025:KER:38809
negligence on the part of the first respondent-driver of the
offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an
amount of ₹6,03,300/- together with interest @ 9% 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 are challenged by the claim petitioner -
Notional income
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim
petitioner that the claim petitioner, a 56 year old lady was
engaged in making confectioneries when the incident occurred on
02/10/2016. Going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v.
Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd, (2011)
2025:KER:38809
13 SCC 236, the notional income of even a coolie was liable to be
fixed at ₹10,500/-. Therefore, he submits that the notional income
fixed by the Tribunal is quite low, which requires to be enhanced.
This submission is not opposed by the learned counsel for the
second respondent/insurer. Therefore, in the light of the dictum in
Ramachandrappa (Supra), the notional income of the claim
petitioner is fixed as ₹10,500/- per month.
Loss of earning
An amount of ₹50,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal
granted an amount of ₹32,000/-, that is, loss of earnings for four
months. This is again challenged to be on the lower side.
Ext.A4 wound certificate shows that the following are
the injuries sustained-
1. Head injury.
2. Right clavicle fracture.
3. Nasal and right ear bleeding.
Ext.A5 discharge summary shows that she was hospitalised for a
period of 26 days. Therefore, taking into account the nature of
2025:KER:38809
injuries and the period of hospitalisation, in all probability she
might have been unable to work for a period of about six months.
Therefore, the amount of compensation she would be entitled to is
₹10,500/- x 6 months = ₹63,000/-.
Compensation for loss of amenities
An amount of ₹1,00,000/- was claimed. However, the
Tribunal did not grant any amount.
In the light of the injuries revealed by Ext.A4 wound
certificate, I find that an amount of ₹50,000/- under this head
would be just and reasonable.
10. 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 ₹50,000/- ₹32,000/- ₹63,000/-
earnings (10,500/- x 6
months)
2. Transport to ₹500/- ₹500/- ₹500/-
hospital (No modification)
3. Damage to ₹500/- ₹500/- ₹500/-
clothings (No modification)
2025:KER:38809
4. Expenses for ₹15,000/- ₹14,000/- ₹14,000/-
extra (No modification)
nourishment
5. Expenses for ₹4,25,144/- ₹4,24,163/- ₹4,24,163/-
medical (No modification)
treatment
6. Expenses for ₹10,000/- ₹13,000/- ₹13,000/-
bystander (No modification)
7. Compensation ₹1,00,000/- ₹50,000/- ₹50,000/-
for pain and (No modification)
sufferings
8. Compensation ₹50,000/- Not entitled Not entitled
for future (No modification)
treatment
9. Compensation ₹1,00,000/- Not entitled ₹50,000/-
for loss of
amenities and
enjoyment in
life.
10. Compensation ₹2,00,000/- ₹69,120/- ₹90,720/-
for permanent
disability (₹10,500/- x 12 x
8% x 9 )
Total ₹10,01,144/- ₹6,03,283/- ₹7,05,883/-
Claim is
limited to ₹10,00,000/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing
the compensation by a further amount of ₹1,02,600/- (total
compensation ₹7,05,883/- that is, ₹6,03,283/- granted by the
2025:KER:38809
Tribunal + ₹1,02,600/- 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 second respondent/insurance
company 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
Jms
