Kerala High Court
Laila vs Anees.K.S on 11 June, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.795 of 2020
1
2025:KER:41123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1947
MACA NO. 795 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 06.08.2019 IN OP(MV)NO.1034 OF
2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
MUVATTUPUZHA.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
LAILA,
AGED 52 YEARS,
W/O.ABDULKAREEM, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE,
KARIKODU KARA, KARIKODE VILLAGE,
THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADV SHRI.AJEESH S.BRITE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 ANEES.K.S., AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT,
S/O.SIDHIQU, KANNAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
THALAPALAM KARA, ERATTUPETTA VILLAGE,
MEENACHIL TALUK, ERATTUPETTA P.O.,
KOTTAYAM -686 121.
2 MANOJ M.P., AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT,
S/O.PARAMESWERAN NAIR, NJEZHUVANKAL HOUSE,
ERUMATHALA P.O.,
ERUMATHALA KARA, EDATHALA VILLAGE,
ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM-683 112.
3 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
PRAKASH BUILDING, TB JUNCTION, THODUPUZHA P.O.,
PIN-685 586, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
THODUPUZHA BRANCH.
M.A.C.A.No.795 of 2020
2
2025:KER:41123
BY ADV SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.795 of 2020
3
2025:KER:41123
C.S.SUDHA, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.795 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th 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.1034/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Muvattupuzha, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of
compensation granted by Award dated 06/08/2019. 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 14/08/2017
at 05:00 a.m., she was travelling in a car bearing registration
No.KL-41 H 9361 from Perumbavoor to Thodupuzha. When she
reached the place by name Pezhakkapilly, the car collided with
another car bearing registration No.KL 17-F-1355 as a result of
2025:KER:41123
which she sustained injuries. The accident was the result of the rash
and negligent driving of the first respondent/driver. An amount of
₹17,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.
3. The first respondent/driver and the second
respondent/owner remained ex parte.
4. The third respondent/insurer filed written
statement admitting the policy, but denying the liability. It was
contended that negligence was on the part of the driver of the car
bearing registration No.KL 17 F 1355. The age, occupation,
income, injuries and treatment amount claimed were disputed. It
was also contended that the amount claimed was excessive.
5. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A23 were marked
on the side of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was
produced by the respondents. No oral evidence was adduced by
either side. Ext.C1 is certificate issued from the District Hospital,
Thodupuzha.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary
evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part
2025:KER:41123
of the 1st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the
incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹9,60,900/- together with
interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the petition till the date
of realisation. 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 latter, a housewife and a tailor aged 50 years was
earning an amount of ₹20,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal
fixed the amount at ₹7,000/- which is very low. He draws my
attention to the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236,
2025:KER:41123
where the notional income of even a coolie was liable to be fixed at
₹11,000/-.
There is no evidence to show that the claim petitioner was
earning as a tailor. That fact that she was a home maker is not
disputed. Therefore, in the light of the dictum in
Ramachandrappa (Supra), I find that fixing an amount of
₹11,000/- as notional income would be just and reasonable.
Loss of earnings
The materials on record show that the claim petitioner
sustained the following injuries:-
"(1) Type II compound fracture of left tibia
(2) Fracture shaft of right tibia (middle 1/3)
(3) Lacerated wound left elbow with olecranon fracture
(4) Lacerated wound left knee
(5) C2 vertibral body fracture type 3
(6) Inter hemispheric SAH and tentorial SAH
(7) Avulsed scalp wound.
She was hospitalized for a period of 61 days in two different spells.
In the light of the nature of injuries and hospitalization, in all
probability she might have been unable to work for at least a period
of 8 months and therefore the amount can be fixed at ₹11,000/- x 8
2025:KER:41123
months= ₹88,000/-
Extra Nourishment
An amount of ₹50,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal
granted an amount ₹10,000/-. Taking into the nature of injuries and
the period of hospitalization, I find that an amount of ₹12,000/-
would be reasonable.
Bystander expenses
An amount of ₹50,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal
granted an amount ₹18,300/-. It is submitted by the learned counsel
for the claim petitioner that in addition to 61 days of hospitalization
was under bed rest for a period of one year and therefore,
appropriate enhancement is necessary under this head also. Per
contra it was submitted by the learned counsel for the third
respondent/insurer that a reasonable amount has been granted and
that no further enhancement is required. It is also pointed out that
there is no evidence to show that she was laid up for a period of one
year.
2025:KER:41123
In the light of the injuries sustained and the period of
hospitalization, I find that bystander expenses for a period of 61
days at the rate of ₹500/- can be granted, that is, ₹500/- x 61days=
₹30,500/-.
Pain and sufferings
An amount of ₹2,00,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal
granted an amount ₹50,000/-. The learned counsel for the third
respondent/insurer submits that the amount was quite reasonable
and that it requires no enhancement. Taking into account the nature
of injuries sustained which includes two fractures and the period of
hospitalization undergone, I find that an amount of ₹75,000/- 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 ₹2,40,000/- ₹35,000/- ₹88,000/-
earnings (₹11,000/- x 8
months)
2 Damage to ₹5,000/- ₹1,000/- ₹1,000/-
clothing and (No
2025:KER:41123
articles modification)
3 Extra ₹50,000/- ₹10,000/- ₹12,000/-
nourishment
4 Bystander ₹50,000/- ₹18,300/- ₹30,500/-
expenses (₹500/- x 61
days)
5 Transport to ₹5,000/- ₹5,000/- ₹5,000/-
hospital and (No
back modification)
6 Medical ₹6,00,000/- ₹6,01,762/- ₹6,01,762
expenses (No
modification)
7 Pain and 2,00,000/- ₹50,000/- ₹75,000/-
sufferings
8 Loss of ₹2,00,000/- ₹30,000/- ₹30,000/-
convenience (No
and amenities modification)
9 Future ₹2,00,000/- ₹25,000/- ₹25,000/-
treatment (No
expenses modification)
10 Compensation ₹2,00,000/- ₹1,84,800/- ₹2,90,400/-
for permanent (₹11,000/-
disability x12x11x20%)
Total ₹17,50,000/- ₹9,60,862/- ₹11,58,662/-
Claim is rounded to
limited to ₹9,60,900/-
₹17,00,000/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹1,97,762/- (total
compensation ₹11,58,662/-, that is, ₹9,60,900/- granted by the
Tribunal + ₹1,97,762/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate
2025:KER:41123
of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization
and proportionate costs. The third 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.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
C.S. SUDHA
JUDGE
ak
