Kerala High Court
Nimisha Francis vs Ann Steffy Martin on 10 June, 2025
2025:KER:40663
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1947
MACA NO. 599 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED IN OPMV NO.1002 OF 2016 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
NIMISHA FRANCIS
AGED 31 YEARS, W/O.FRANCIS P.V., PUTHENPURAKKAL
HOUSE, PUTHENTHODE, KANDAKADAVU, KUMBALANGI
VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP
SMT.T.MANASY
SMT.MINISHA K DAS
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 ANN STEFFY MARTIN
W/O.ANOOP GEORGE, MOOTHARIYIL HOUSE, PERUMPADAPU,
PALLURUTHY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI- 682006
2 GEORGE V.M.
S/O.MATHAI, VELLALAYIKUDY HOUSE, KOTTAPADAM P.O.,
MANNARGHAT, PALAKKAD - 678 583.
3 THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED, JOSE TRUST BUILDING, CHITTOOR ROAD,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682011.
BY ADV SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:40663
MACA NO. 599 OF 2020
2
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.599 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th 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.1002/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Ernakulam, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of
compensation granted by Award dated 13/05/2019. The respondents
herein are respondents 1 to 3 respectively 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 15/01/2016 at
10:15 p.m., while she was pillion riding on scooter bearing
registration no.KL43F5523 through Kumbalangi-Kandakkadavu
road and when she reached the place by name Kandakkadavu
junction, car bearing registration no.KL09L6451 driven by the first
2025:KER:40663
MACA NO. 599 OF 2020
respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the
scooter as a result of which she fell down and sustained multiple
injuries. The incident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving
of the first respondent. A sum of ₹20,00,000/- was claimed as
compensation under various heads.
3. The first respondent/driver remained ex parte.
4. The second respondent/owner filed written statement
denying negligence on the part of the first respondent/driver. It was
also contended that the compensation claimed was quite excessive.
5. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement
admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending
vehicle. The age, occupation and income of the claim petitioner
were disputed. It was also contended that the compensation claimed
was quite excessive.
6. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A15 and Ext.X1 were
marked on the side of the claim petitioner. RW1 was examined and
Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the respondents.
2025:KER:40663
MACA NO. 599 OF 2020
7. The Tribunal on a consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found
negligence on the part of the first respondent/driver of the offending
vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of
₹8,28,650/- 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.
8. 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.
9. Heard both sides
10. 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 latter, a 29 year old lady, was a helper in a catering service
2025:KER:40663
MACA NO. 599 OF 2020
earning ₹15,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal, fixed the
notional income at ₹10,000/-, which is on the lower side. Going by
the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236, the notional income of even
a coolie was liable to be fixed at ₹10,500/- and therefore, she
submits that a reasonable enhancement may be granted. Per contra,
it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third
respondent/insurer that the amount that has been fixed by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable and no enhancement is called for.
In the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), I find
that an amount of ₹11,000/- can be fixed as the notional income of
the claim petitioner.
Loss of earnings
It is pointed out that though an amount of ₹1,00,000/- was
claimed under this head, the Tribunal has granted an amount of
₹80,000/-. This again is challenged.
Ext.A5 wound certificate reveals that the following injuries
2025:KER:40663
MACA NO. 599 OF 2020
were sustained by the claim petitioner:
1) lacerated wound on the forehead
2) abrasions on the left side of hip and lower back
3) pain and tenderness of sacral region
4) pain and tenderness of abdomen
5) x-ray pelvis revealed fracture of right inferior
pubic rami
6) left sacroiliac joint disruption.
7) Ultra sound scan revealed free fluid in the pelvis
and abdomen
8) x-ray fractures of right 8th, 9th and 10th ribs."
The materials on record show that she was hospitalized for a
period of 32 days in different spells. She underwent two surgeries
and therefore in such circumstances, in all probability, she might
have been unable to work for a period of 10 months. Therefore, she
can be granted compensation towards loss of earnings for a period
of 10 months which is ₹1,10,000/- (11,000 x 10).
Compensation for loss of amenities and comforts
Though an amount of ₹1,00,000/- was claimed under this
head, the Tribunal has granted an amount of ₹80,000/- which is
2025:KER:40663
MACA NO. 599 OF 2020
also stated to be on the lower side.
Taking into account the injuries sustained, the period of
hospitalization and the percentage of disability assessed as per
Ext.X1, I find that an amount of ₹90,000/- under this head would
be just and reasonable.
11. 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 1,00,000/- 80,000/- 1,10,000/-
earnings (10,000 x 8) (11,000 x 10)
2. Transport to 10,000/- 7,500/- 7,500/-
hospital and (No
back to home Modification)
3. Extra 20,000/- 25,000/- 25,000/-
nourishment (No
Modification)
4. Damage to 2,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/-
clothes and (No
articles Modification)
5. Treatment 5,00,000/- 3,30,750/- 3,30,750/-
expenses (No
Modification)
6. Bystander 18,000/- 11,200/- 11,200/-
expenses (No
Modification)
2025:KER:40663
MACA NO. 599 OF 2020
7. Future 50,000/- 30,000/- 30,000/-
treatment (No
expenses Modification)
8. Compensation 2,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/-
for pain and (No
sufferings Modification)
9. Compensation 1,00,000/- 80,000/- 90,000/-
for loss of
amenities and
comforts
10 Compensation 10,00,000/- 1,63,200 1,79,520/-
for continuing (10,000 x 12 x (11,000 x 12 x
or permanent 17 x 8/100) 17 x 8/100)
disability
Total 20,00,000/- 8,28,650/- 8,84,970/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹56,320/- (that is,
₹8,28,650/- granted by the Tribunal plus ₹56,320/- 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
2025:KER:40663
MACA NO. 599 OF 2020
earliest in accordance with law after making deductions, if any.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
NP
