Kerala High Court
Arun Kumar vs National Insurance Co. Ltd on 13 June, 2025
2025:KER:41877
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1947
MACA NO. 660 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 30.11.2018 IN OPMV NO.414 OF
2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VATAKARA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ARUN KUMAR
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O.RAJAN, VALAR KUNI HOUSE, P.O. MOODADI,
KOZHIKODE-673307
BY ADV SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
NOOR COMPLEX, ARAYIDATHPALAM, MAVOOR ROAD,
KOZHIKODE -673004, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER
BY ADV SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 13.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:41877
MACA NO. 660 OF 2020
2
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.660 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th 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.414/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Vatakara, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of
compensation granted by Award dated 30/11/2018. The sole
respondent herein is the third respondent/insurer 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 16/11/2016 at
about 06:45 p.m., while he was getting into bus bearing
registration no.KL56L1188 driven by the second respondent, the
latter in a rash and negligent manner suddenly started the bus
2025:KER:41877
MACA NO. 660 OF 2020
without bell as a result of which the claim petitioner fell down and
sustained grievous injuries. A sum of ₹9,00,000/- was claimed as
compensation under various heads.
3. The first respondent/owner and the second
respondent/driver remained ex parte.
4. The third 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 second
respondent. The age, occupation and income of the claim
petitioner were disputed. It was contended that the compensation
claimed was quite excessive.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by
either side. Exts.A1 to A6 and Ext.C1 were marked on the side of
the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was adduced by
the third respondent/insurer.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary
evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the
2025:KER:41877
MACA NO. 660 OF 2020
part of the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle
resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of
₹7,49,900/- together with interest @ 8% 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.
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, an autorickshaw driver aged 29 years, was earning
₹15,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has fixed the notional
income at ₹9,000/-, which is quite low even going by the dictum
2025:KER:41877
MACA NO. 660 OF 2020
in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236.
In the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra),
fixing the notional income at ₹10,500/- would be just and
reasonable.
Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life
It is pointed out that though an amount of ₹1,00,000/- was
claimed under this head, the Tribunal has granted an amount of
₹30,000/- only. The claim petitioner in this case is seen to have
been an inpatient for a period of 35 days. In the light of injuries
sustained, which includes a fracture and as he had to undergo two
surgeries, I find that an amount of ₹45,000/- under this head
would be just and reasonable.
The learned counsel for the claim petitioner also challenged
the Award of compensation under other heads also. However, on
going through the facts of the case, I find that the percentage of
disability assessed is only 11% and therefore, the compensation
2025:KER:41877
MACA NO. 660 OF 2020
awarded is just and reasonable and does not call for any
interference.
10. The impugned Award is modified to the following
extent:
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in appeal
No. claimed Awarded by (in ₹)
(in ₹) Tribunal (in
₹)
1. Loss of 75,000/- 54,000/- 63,000/-
earning from (9,000 x 6) (10,500 x 6)
16.11.2016 till
this date
2. Transport to 6,000/- 2,000/- 2,000/-
hospital (No Modification)
3. Extra 37,000/- 25,600/- 25,600/-
nourishment & (No Modification)
bystander's
expenses
4. Medial 5,00,000/- 3,75,287/- 3,75,287/-
expenses (No Modification)
5. Damage to 3,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/-
clothing and (No Modification)
articles
6. Pain & 3,00,000/- 60,000/- 60,000/-
suffering (No Modification)
7. Loss of 1,00,000/- 30,000/- 45,000/-
amenities and
enjoyment in
life
2025:KER:41877
MACA NO. 660 OF 2020
8. Permanent 7,00,000/- 2,01,960/- 2,35,620/-
disability (9,000 x 12 x (10,500 x 12 x 17
17 x 11/100) x 11/100)
9. Loss of 3,00,000/- Nil Nil
earning power (No Modification)
10 Predominantly Nil Nil Nil
happy life (No Modification)
Total 20,21,000/- 7,49,847/- 8,07,507/-
limited to rounded to
9,00,000/- 7,49,900/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹57,607/- (total
compensation ₹8,07,507/- that is, ₹7,49,900/- granted by the
Tribunal + ₹57,607/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate of
8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization
(excluding the period of 231 days delay in filing the appeal) 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 earliest in accordance with law after
2025:KER:41877
MACA NO. 660 OF 2020
making deductions, if any.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/-/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
NP
