Kerala High Court
Sareesh vs New India Assurance Company Ltd on 2 June, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.496 of 2020
1
2025:KER:38442
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. 496 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 21.02.2019 IN OP(MV)NO.283 OF
2017 OF THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH
PARAVUR.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SAREESH,
AGED 31 YEARS,
S/O.SANTHOSH, THAIVEPPIL HOUSE,
THIRUTHIPPURAM KARA, MOOTHAKUNNAM VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.A.N.SANTHOSH
SRI.K.SHAJU VARGHESE
SHRI.RIBIN BENNY
RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, A.M.COMPLEX,
OPP.TIP TOP FUNITURE, CHANGUVETTY, KOTTACKAL,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 505.
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
BY ADV SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN, SC, NEW INDIA
ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.496 of 2020
2
2025:KER:38442
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.496 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 02nd 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.283/2017 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, N. Paravur (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of
compensation granted by Award dated 21/02/2019. The respondent
herein is the 3rd respondent 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 17/07/2017,
he was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KL 42E/8819
through Moothakunnam Paravur road from south to north. When he
reached Kuriappilly junction, truck bearing registration No.KL 11
2025:KER:38442
AU 6941 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner
and in high speed knocked him down as a result of which he
sustained injuries. The 1st respondent is the driver, 2nd respondent is
the owner and the 3rd respondent is the insurer.
3. The 1st respondent/driver and the 2nd respondent/
owner remained ex parte.
4. The 3rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement
contending that the 1st respondent was not having a valid driving
license at the time of the incident. The 2 nd respondent permitted the
1st respondent to drive the vehicle with the knowledge that the latter
was not authorised to drive a vehicle. Hence, there has been violation
of the policy conditions. The negligence alleged against the 1st
respondent was denied. It was also contented that the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the claim petitioner. The claim
raised were also disputed.
5. Before the Tribunal, the claim petitioner was
examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A11 marked. No oral evidence was
adduced by the respondents. Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side
2025:KER:38442
of the 3rd respondent.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary
evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part
of the 1st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the
incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹8,66,526/- with interest
@ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of the
award and @9% per annum from the date of the award till the date of
payment. 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 claimant, a 29 year old man was a carpenter when
2025:KER:38442
the incident occurred on 17/07/2017. An amount of ₹20,000/- was
stated to be the monthly income of the claim petitioner. However, the
Tribunal fixed an amount of ₹14,000/- as notional income which is
inclusive of future prospects also. This is stated to be on the lower
side. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 3 rd
respondent/insurer that the notional income fixed is reasonable and
that it does not call for any interference.
As per the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager,
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236
the notional income of even a coolie in the year 2017 was liable to be
fixed at ₹11,000/-. The learned counsel for the claim petitioner also
draws my attention to G.O.(P).No.56/2017/Fin dated 28/04/2017 as
per which the daily wages of a labourer has been fixed at ₹630/- per
day. In the light of Ext.A8, I find that fixing an amount of 14,000/- as
notional income would be reasonable.
Loss of income
An amount of ₹2,40,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal
granted an amount of ₹20,000/- which is again submitted to be on
2025:KER:38442
the lower side.
Ext.A4 wound certificate and Ext.A5 discharge summary
refer to the following injuries sustained by the claim petitioner-
"Surgical scar and wound scar over the right knee and leg. Skin
grafted area over the leg.
Right knee movements from 180 degree to 90 degree flexion. Right
ankle movements no inversion and eversion, no adduction or
adbuction."
The claim petitioner when examined as PW1 has explained in detail
the injuries sustained by him; the surgeries and the medical
interventions to which he was subjected to. This testimony of PW1
has not been denied or discredited. He was hospitalized for a period
of 30 days. He sustained three fractures. In the light of the injuries
sustained, in all probability he must have been unable to work at least
for a period of 8 months. Therefore, towards 'loss of earnings' he
will be entitled to ₹14,000/- x 8 months=1,12,000/-.
Extra Nourishment
An amount of ₹25,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal granted
an amount of ₹3,000/- which is again pointed out to be on the lower
side.
2025:KER:38442
Taking into account the period of hospitalization, the
surgeries and the medical interventions undergone, I find that an
amount of ₹6,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable.
Bystander's expenses
An amount of ₹2,00,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal
granted an amount of ₹12,000/-, which is again pointed out to be on
the lower side.
The incident took place on 17/07/2017. The claimant was
hospitalized for a period of 30 days. That being the position, I find
that bystander's expenses at the rate of ₹500/- per day for a period of
30 days would be reasonable compensation (500/- x
30days=15,000/-).
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. Damage to ₹5,000/- ₹1,500/- ₹1,500/-
clothing (No modification)
2. Transportation ₹25,000/- ₹4,000/- ₹4,000/-
expenses (No modification)
3. Medical ₹5,00,000/- ₹2,46,186/- ₹2,46,186/-
2025:KER:38442
expenses (No modification)
4. Future medical ₹2,00,000/- Nil Nil
expenses (No modification)
5. Bystander's ₹2,00,000/- ₹12,000/- ₹15,000/-
expenses (₹500/- x30 days)
6. Extra ₹25,000/- ₹3,000/- ₹6,000/-
nourishment
7. Loss of income ₹2,40,000/- ₹20,000/- ₹1,12,000/-
for one year (₹14,000/- x
8months)
8. Compensation ₹5,00,000/- ₹1,00,000/- ₹1,00,000/-
for loss of (No modification)
amenities and
enjoyment in
life
9. Compensation ₹5,00,000/- ₹80,000/- ₹80,000/-
for pain and (No modification)
sufferings
10. Compensation ₹2,00,000/- Nil Nil
for (No modification)
disfiguration
11. Compensation ₹10,00,000/- ₹3,99,840/- ₹5,59,776/-
for permanent (14,000/-
disability/funct +40%x12x17x14
ional disability %)
12. Compensation 10,00,000/- Nil Nil
for loss of (No modification)
earning power
Total ₹43,95,000/- ₹8,66,526/- ₹11,24,462/-
(The claim is
limited to
25,00,000/-)
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹2,57,936/- (total
2025:KER:38442
compensation ₹11,24,462/- that is,₹8,66,526/- granted by the
Tribunal + ₹2,57,936/- 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 107 days delay in filing the appeal) and
proportionate costs. The 3rd 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
ak
