Kerala High Court
C. Anilkumar vs Johnson on 5 June, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.522 of 2020
1
2025:KER:39703
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. 522 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 30.04.2019 IN OP(MV)NO.921 OF
2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:
C. ANILKUMAR,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. CHIDAMBARAN, BHAGAVATHY PARAMBU, AROOR P.O.,
NOW RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.X/468, WARD NO.X,
KUMBALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
SMT.K.N.RAJANI
SMT.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.
SMT.ANILA PETER
SHRI.S.SUDHEESH
SRI.SAJEN THAMPAN
SRI.CAESAR V PILLA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 JOHNSON,
S/O. XAVIER, PRASSERIL VEEDU, KODAMTHURUTHU,
EZHUPUNNA SOUTH POST OFFICE, CHERTHALA-688 550.
2 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
COCHIN DIVISONAL OFFICE, 4TH FLOOR,
JOS TRUST BUILDING, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM
COLLEGE P.O., COCHIN-682 035,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
M.A.C.A.No.522 of 2020
2
2025:KER:39703
3 SRI. S. SURAJ KRISHNA,
28/3668, WATER FRONT ROAD,
CHILAVANNOOR, KADAVANTHRA P.O.,
COCHIN-682 020.
BY ADV SHRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.522 of 2020
3
2025:KER:39703
C.S.SUDHA, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.522 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 05th day of June 2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (the Act) has been filed by the claim petitioner in O.P.(MV)
No.921/2015 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Ernakulam, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of
compensation granted by Award dated 30/04/2019. 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 26/05/2014
at 05:00 p.m., while he was riding his bicycle through the
Alappuzha-Ernakulam NH, vehicle bearing registration No.KL-
7/AD-493 ridden by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent
manner knocked him down as a result of which he sustained
2025:KER:39703
grievous injuries.
3. The 1st respondent/rider and 3rd respondent/owner
remained ex parte.
4. The 2nd respondent/insurer filed written statement
denying negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. The age, job,
income and amount claimed under various heads were disputed.
5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 and PW2 were
examined and Exts.A1 to A10 were marked on the side of the
claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was produced by the
respondents. Ext.X1 is the disability certificate.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found
negligence on the part of the 1st respondent/rider of the offending
vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of
₹3,46,700/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of
the petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs.
Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioner has come up in
appeal.
2025:KER:39703
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
The learned counsel for the claim petitioner submits that
the latter was a person who was running a tea shop and earning
₹15,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the amount at
₹7,000/- only. Even going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v.
Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd, (2011)
13 SCC 236, the notional income of a coolie was liable to be fixed
at ₹9,500/-. Therefore, she submits that the amount fixed may be
reasonably enhanced.
The allegation that the claim petitioner was running a tea
shop is not supported by oral or documentary evidence. However,
in the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra) I find that
2025:KER:39703
fixing an amount of ₹9,500/- as notional income would be just and
reasonable.
Compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life
An amount of ₹1,00,000/- was claimed. However, the
Tribunal did not grant any amount. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the claim petitioner that taking into account the nature
of injuries sustained and the assessment of disability at 20%, the
Tribunal went wrong in not granting any amount as compensation.
Exts.A4 to A7 the wound certificate; the treatment
certificate; the MRI Scan report and the medical certificate
respectively reveal the injuries sustained by the claim petitioner:-
"Subacute compression fracture T12 vertebral body with
25% height loss of the anterior aspect with marro edema
at fracture site. Contusion low back."
Ext.X1 disability certificate which has been accepted by the
Tribunal, shows that due to the injuries 20% permanent disability
was caused. The claim petitioner was hospitalized for two days. In
the light of the injuries sustained and the resultant disability caused,
I find that an amount of ₹40,000/- towards loss of amenities and
2025:KER:39703
enjoyment in life 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 ₹1,20,000/- ₹42,000/- ₹57,000/-
earning (₹9,500/- x
6months)
2 Transport to ₹8,000/- ₹4,000/- ₹4,000/-
hospital (No
modification)
3 Damage to ₹2,000/- ₹1,000/- ₹1,000/-
clothings (No
modification)
4 Expenses for ₹5,000/- ₹1,000/- ₹1,000/-
extra (No
nourishment modification)
5 Expenses for ₹20,000/- ₹4,272/- ₹4,272/-
medical (No
treatment modification)
6 Expenses for ₹5,000/- ₹1,000/- ₹1,000/-
bystander (No
modification)
7 Compensation ₹1,00,000/- ₹75,000/- ₹75,000/-
for pain and (No
sufferings modification)
8 Compensation ₹50,000/- Not entitled Nil
for future (No
treatment modification)
9 Compensation ₹1,00,000/- Not entitled ₹40,000/-
for loss of
amenities and
enjoyment in
2025:KER:39703
life
10 Compensation ₹50,000/- ₹2,18,400/- ₹2,96,400/-
for permanent (₹9,500/-
disability x12x20/100x13
)
11 Compensation ₹6,08,400/- Nil Nil
for loss of (No
earning modification)
capacity
Total ₹10,68,400/- ₹3,46,672/- ₹4,79,672/-
rounded to
₹3,46,700/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹1,32,972/- (total
compensation ₹4,79,672/-, that is, ₹3,46,700/- granted by the
Tribunal + ₹1,32,972/- 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 2nd respondent/insurance company is
directed to deposit the compensation with interest and costs before
the Tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a
copy of the judgment. On deposit of the compensation amount, the
Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claim petitioner at the
earliest in accordance with law after making deductions, if any.
2025:KER:39703
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
SD/-
C.S. SUDHA
JUDGE
ak
