Kerala High Court
Vikraman Pillai vs The National Insurance Co. Ltd on 11 June, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.477 of 2020
&
Cross Objection No.50 of 2020
1
2025:KER:41483
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. 477 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 20.05.2019 IN OPMV NO.126 OF
2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
KOLLAM.
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, OMANA BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-35.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
SMT.ALEXY AUGUSTINE
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
VIKRAMAN PILLAI,
AGED 55 YEARS,
S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, KAVINTE THEKKATHIL,
(THUDAYANKOTTU THEKKATHIL) PALACKAL, THEVALAKKARA.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.PRATHEESH.P
SMT.ANJANA KANNATH
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 11.06.2025, ALONG WITH CO.50/2020, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.477 of 2020
&
Cross Objection No.50 of 2020
2
2025:KER:41483
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
CO NO. 50 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 20.05.2019 IN OPMV NO.126 OF
2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
KOLLAM.
CROSS OBJECTOR/RSPONDENT:
VIKRAMAN PILLAI,
AGED 55 YEARS,
S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, KAVINTE THEKKATHIL,
(THUDAYANKOTTU THEKKATHIL), PALACKAL,
THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM-690 524.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.PRATHEESH.P
SMT.ANJANA KANNATH
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT:
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, OMANA BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-35.
BY ADV SMT.ALEXY AUGUSTINE
THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 11.06.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.477/2020, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.477 of 2020
&
Cross Objection No.50 of 2020
3
2025:KER:41483
C.S.SUDHA, J.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.477 of 2020
&
Cross Objection No.50 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 third respondent/insurer in O.P.
(MV) No.126/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Kollam, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of
compensation granted by Award dated 20/05/2019. 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 claim petitioner, on 05/05/2015 at
07:00 p.m., he was riding his motorcycle bearing registration no.KL
23/E-2304 through Adoor-Chavara road and when he reached the
place by name Koozhamkulam junction, private bus bearing
&
2025:KER:41483
registration No.KL-26/6606 driven by the second respondent in a
rash and negligent manner knocked him down as a result of which he
sustained grievous injuries.
3. The first respondent/owner and the second
respondent/driver remained ex parte.
4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement
admitting the policy, but denying rash and negligent driving by the
second respondent. It was contended that the amount claimed under
various heads were exorbitant.
5. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A25 were marked
on the side of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was
adduced by the respondents. No oral evidence was adduced by either
side. Ext.X1 is the disability certificate.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary
evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part
of the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle resulting in
the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹20,90,500/- together
with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till the
&
2025:KER:41483
date of realisation. Aggrieved by the Award, the third
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:-
Notional income
The learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer
submitted that an amount of ₹20,000/- fixed as notional income is
quite high in the light of the materials on record. Therefore, the same
requires to be reduced appropriately. Per contra, it is submitted by
the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that Ext.A19 bank
statement would substantiate his allegation regarding the monthly
income and therefore the same does not call for any interference.
On going through Ext.A19, I find that during the period
from 2013 till 2015 remittances of an average of ₹35,000/- is seen.
&
2025:KER:41483
Marking of Ext.A19 is not seen objected to during the course of the
trial. Hence, I do not find any infirmity committed by the Tribunal in
fixing the notional income as ₹20,000/-.
Loss of earnings
An amount of ₹5,00,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal
granted an amount of ₹3,60,000/- which is for a period of 1 ½ years
or 18 months. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the third
respondent/insurer that the period of hospitalization was for a period
of 80 days only and therefore the period for which loss of earning has
been given is on the higher side. On the other hand, the learned
counsel for the claim petitioner draws my attention to the injuries
sustained by the claim petitioner and submits that the period for
which loss of earnings has been granted is reasonable and that it does
not require any interference.
The materials on record show that following are the injuries
sustained by the claim petitioner -
Grade III-C, open fracture dislocation of left knee (Popliteal artery
injury), PCL, ACL mid substance complete tear; tibial tuberosity
&
2025:KER:41483
avulsion fracture (left) ; lateral tibial condyle fracture (left) ;
degloving injury (left) leg proximal 1/3rd & DM. The clinical findings
are-popilted fossa measuring 15x10x17 cm with proximal tibia
protruding out and ACL and PCL completely torn in mid substance;
grossly contaminated wound; degloving of skin over the anterior
proximal tibia, absence of dorsals pedia and posterior tibial artery
pulsation. He was hospitalized in different spells for a period of 80
days. The materials on record reveal that he had taken treatment till
2016. Hence, taking into account the injuries sustained and the
treatment availed, I find that the period of 18 months or 1 ½ years
that has been granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
Bystander expenses
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the third
respondent/insurer that though no amount was claimed under this
head, the Tribunal proceeded to award an amount of ₹1,35,000/-
which is without any basis. On the other hand, it is submitted by the
learned counsel for the claim petitioner that taking into account the
grievous injuries sustained by the claim petitioner who was an
&
2025:KER:41483
electrician at the time of the incident, it goes without saying that the
assistance of a bystander was required and therefore, no infirmity has
been committed by the Tribunal.
Taking into account the nature of injuries, the period of
hospitalization and the medical interventions that the claim petitioner
had to undergone, he might probably have been unable to work at
least for a period of 8 months and therefore, the bystander expenses
to which he is entitled is ₹96,000/- (₹400/- 30 days x 8 months).
Compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the third
respondent/insurer that though no amount was claimed under this
head, an amount of ₹1,00,000/- was granted, which is in addition to
an amount of ₹1,00,000/- that has been granted towards pain and
sufferings. Therefore, appropriate deduction may be made. This
again is opposed by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner who
submits that it is only a reasonable amount that has been granted
which calls for no interference.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that an
&
2025:KER:41483
amount of ₹75,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable.
Future treatment
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the third
respondent/insurer that there was neither any pleadings nor any
evidence led to substantiate the claim under this head. However, the
Tribunal granted an amount of ₹50,000/-. Per contra, it was
submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that though
no documents have been produced, the claim petitioner who was a
diabetic person is still undergoing treatment.
In the absence of any evidence to show that he has availed
any treatment after 2016, I find that an amount of ₹20,000/- would be
just and reasonable under this head.
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 ₹5,00,000/- ₹3,60,000/- ₹3,60,000/-
earnings (₹20,000/- x 1 ½
years)
2 Compensation ₹1,00,000/- Nil Nil
treatment (No modification)
&
2025:KER:41483
3 Transport to ₹75,000/- ₹30,000/- ₹30,000/-
hospital (No modification)
4 Extra ₹10,000/- ₹10,000/- ₹10,000/-
nourishment (No modification)
5 Damage to ₹1,000/- ₹3,500/- ₹3,500/-
clothing and (No modification)
articles
6 Treatment, ₹10,00,000/- ₹7,74,000/- ₹7,74,000/-
medicine and (No modification)
hospital
expenses
Bystander ₹1,35,000/- ₹96,000/-
expenses
(₹400/- x 30 days x
8 months)
7 Compensation ₹1,00,000/- ₹1,00,000/- ₹1,00,000/-
for pain and (No modification)
suffering
8 Compensation
for continuing ₹5,28,000/- ₹5,28,000/-
or permanent ₹7,00,000/- (No modification)
disability
Compensation ₹5,00,000/- Nil Nil
for loss of (No modification)
earning
9 Compensation Nil ₹1,00,000/- ₹75,000/-
for loss of
amenities and
enjoyment in
life
10 Future treatment Nil ₹50,000/- ₹20,000/-
Total ₹31,70,000/- ₹20,90,500/- ₹19,96,500/-
Claim is
limited to
₹15,00,000/-
&
2025:KER:41483
In the result, the appeal is allowed by deducting the
compensation awarded by an amount of ₹94,000/- (total
compensation is ₹19,96,500/-, that is, ₹20,90,500/- granted by the
Tribunal minus ₹94,000/- deducted in appeal).
The cross objection is dismissed.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
C.S. SUDHA
JUDGE
ak
