Kerala High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Pradeep on 5 June, 2025
2025:KER:39616
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1947
MACA NO. 121 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 25.10.2018 IN OPMV NO.10 OF
2016 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
KODUNGALORE NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE, KOCHI-18.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
SHRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
PRADEEP,
S/O. MAHADEVAN, THENAYATTU HOUSE,
KARIMPADOM, CHENNAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
NORTH PARAVUR TALUK, PIN-683512.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.A.N.SANTHOSH
SHRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 05.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:39616
MACA NO. 121 OF 2020
2
C.S.SUDHA, J.
---------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.121 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
The aforesaid appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the 3rd respondent/insurer in
O.P.(MV) No.10/2016 on the file of the Additional Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur, (the Tribunal),
aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated
25/10/2018. The sole respondent herein is the claim petitioner 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 claimant, on 15/06/2015 at 02:30 p.m.,
while he was riding motorcycle bearing registration No.KL42E629
along the Aluva Palace bypass road and when he reached Aluva
Bank junction, motorcycle bearing registration No.KL07BA9188
2025:KER:39616
MACA NO. 121 OF 2020
driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner
knocked him down, as a result of which he sustained grievous
injuries. The incident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the first respondent. Hence, a sum of ₹7,00,000/- was
claimed as compensation under various heads.
3. The first respondent/rider and the second
respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte.
4. The 3rd respondent/insurer filed written statement
admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending
vehicle, but denied negligence on the part of the first respondent.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by
either side. Exts.A1 to A10 and Ext.X1 were marked on the side of
the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was produced by
the respondents.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary
evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part
of the first respondent/rider resulting in the incident and hence
2025:KER:39616
MACA NO. 121 OF 2020
awarded an amount of ₹6,69,773/- together with interest @ 7.5%
per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with
proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the 3rd
respondent/insurer 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 third respondent/insurer -
Percentage of disability
It is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the
third respondent/insurer that as per Ext.X1 disability certificate
issued by the Medial Board, though the disability was assessed as
5%, the Tribunal has enhanced it to 15% without any justification.
Therefore, the same is liable to be interfered. Per contra, it is
submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the
2025:KER:39616
MACA NO. 121 OF 2020
Tribunal relying on the dictums in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar,
(2011) 1 SCC 343 and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 735, has granted
enhancement giving cogent reasons and hence the same is not
liable to be interfered with.
Apart from Ext.X1 disability certificate issued by the
Government Medical College Hospital, Ernakulam, no other
evidence has been adduced or produced by the claim petitioner to
show that due to the injuries sustained, there has been any loss of
earning capacity or that due to the disability sustained, he has been
unable to carry on with his avocation. The Apex Court was dealing
with a case of amputation of limbs in the case of Syed Sadiq
(Supra). The facts of the said case cannot be applied to the facts of
the present case because the injury sustained as evidenced from
Exts.A6 and A7 is 'left proximal tibia lateral condyle (type II
schatzkar fracture)'. Therefore, in the light of the Ext.X1, the
Tribunal was not justified in fixing the disability at 15%. Relying
2025:KER:39616
MACA NO. 121 OF 2020
on Ext.X1, the disability can be fixed at 5%.
Compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life.
It is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the
third respondent/insurer that in the light of the injuries as revealed
from Exts.A6 and A7 and taking into account the fact that the
disability is only 5%, the amount of ₹1,00,000/- awarded as
compensation under this head is on the higher side. The learned
counsel for the claim petitioner submits that the Tribunal has given
plausible reasons for fixing the compensation under the said head
and therefore the same does not call for any interference.
As noticed earlier, the disability has been assessed at 5%
only. The amount of ₹1,00,000/- given under this head seems to be
on the higher side and hence an amount of ₹50,000/- under this
head would be just and reasonable. As the amount of
compensation under this head has been decreased, though there is
no appeal or cross objection by the claim petitioner, I find that a
reasonable enhancement regarding compensation towards loss of
2025:KER:39616
MACA NO. 121 OF 2020
earnings and pain and suffering can be granted. The claim
petitioner was hospitalized for a period of 11 days and he has also
undergone one surgery. Therefore, in all probability, he must have
been unable to work for a period of 6 months. Therefore, towards
loss of earnings, he is entitled to an amount of ₹60,000/- (10,000 x
6). As far as compensation towards pain and suffering is
concerned, I find that an amount of ₹50,000/- would be just
compensation.
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. Complete loss ₹90,000/- ₹30,000/- ₹60,000/-
of earnings (10,000 x 3) (10,000 x 6)
2. Expenses ₹1,50,000/- ₹1,35,673/- ₹1,35,673/-
incurred for (No
medical Modification)
treatment till
date
3. Expenses ₹30,000/- ₹4,000/- ₹4,000/-
incurred for ₹3,300/- ₹3,300/-
transportation (No
and bystander Modification)
2025:KER:39616
MACA NO. 121 OF 2020
4. Expenses for ₹20,000/- ₹3,000/- ₹3,000/-
extra (No
nourishment Modification)
5. Expenses ₹10,000/- ₹1,000/- ₹1,000 /-
incurred on (No
damage to Modification)
clothing
6. Expected ₹1,00,000/- Nil Nil
expenses for (No
further Modification)
medical
treatment
7. Compensation ₹1,50,000/- ₹40,000/- ₹50,000/-
for pain and
suffering
8. Compensation ₹1,00,000/- ₹1,00,000/- ₹50,000/-
for loss of
amenities &
enjoyment in
life
9. Compensation ₹3,00,000/- ₹3,52,800/- ₹1,17,600/-
for permanent [(10,000+40%) x [(10,000+40%)
disability/funct 12 x 14 x x 12 x 14 x
ional disability 15/100) 5/100)
Total amount ₹9,50,000/- ₹6,69,773/- ₹4,24,573/-
claimed in The claim is
various heads. limited to
₹7,00,000/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by deducting the
compensation awarded by an amount of ₹2,45,200/- (that is,
2025:KER:39616
MACA NO. 121 OF 2020
₹6,69,773/- granted by the Tribunal - ₹4,24,573/- granted in
appeal).
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
C.S. SUDHA
JUDGE
NP
