Kerala High Court

K. Shaji Kanayinkal vs Shanoj Lonappan on 16 June, 2025

                                                     2025:KER:42696
M.A.C.A.No.786 of 2020
                                  1
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA

      MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 26TH JYAISHTA, 1947

                         MACA NO. 786 OF 2020

         AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 02.07.2019 IN OPMV NO.676 OF 2017
OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA.

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

             K. SHAJI KANAYINKAL,
             AGED 47 YEARS,
             S/O.MATHEW, KANAYINKAL THEKKETHIL HOUSE,
             THODANAL KARA, THODANAL P.O.,
             MEENACHIL TALUK, PIN - 686 573.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.MATHEW SKARIA
             SRI.C.M.TOMY
             SHRI.K.J.JOSEMON
             SRI.JOY JOSEPH (MUNDACKAL)
             SRI.BALU TOM


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

     1       SHANOJ LONAPPAN,
             CHELAKKATTU HOUSE, VALACHIRA,
             KADUTHURUTHY P.O., PIN - 686 604.

     2       ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO.LTD.
             REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
             SUBRMANYAM BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR,
             NO.1 CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNASALAI,
             CHENNAI - 600 002.

           THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 16.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                                 2025:KER:42696
M.A.C.A.No.786 of 2020
                                         2

                                C.S.SUDHA, J.
                ----------------------------------------------------
                          M.A.C.A.No.786 of 2020
                ----------------------------------------------------
                   Dated this the 16th 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.676/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Pala (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of

compensation granted by Award dated 02/07/2019. 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

03/04/2017 while he was travelling in car bearing registration

no.KL-36/B-5917 driven by the first respondent through Pala -

Thodupuzha road, when he reached the place by name 2025:KER:42696

Alimcompu, the first respondent lost control over the vehicle and

the car dashed against a wall, as a result of which he sustained

grievous injuries.

3. The first respondent-driver remained ex parte.

4. The second respondent/insurer filed written

statement admitting the policy but denying negligence of the first

respondent. The amount of compensation claimed was contended

to be exorbitant.

5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and

Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner.

No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by second

respondent.

6. The Tribunal on 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 car resulting in the incident and hence awarded an 2025:KER:42696

amount of ₹9,20,646/- 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, a farmer was earning ₹20,000/- per

month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at

₹11,000/- only, which is quite low. To substantiate the argument,

he relies on Exts.A12 and A14. Per contra, it is submitted by the 2025:KER:42696

learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer that the amount

granted by the Tribunal is reasonable and that no further

enhancement is required.

Ext.A12, a copy of the lease agreement shows that the

claim petitioner had taken land on lease for the purpose of

cultivation. Ext.A14 is the copy of the pass book issued from the

South Indian Bank, which shows that he had availed a loan for

agricultural purposes.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that

fixing notional income at ₹15,000/- per month would be just and

reasonable.

Loss of earnings

An amount of ₹2,40,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal

granted an amount of ₹66,000/-, which is stated to be on the lower

side.

The records reveal that the claim petitioner sustained the 2025:KER:42696

following injuries -

"1. Fracture radial shaft left.

2. Type 3B open communited supra inter condylar fracture left humerus.

3. Fracture shaft of humerus (Left).

4. Type 3B open communited fracture left oelcranon.

5. Fracture left radial nerve."

He was hospitalised in two different spells for a total

period of 25 days. The injuries include four fractures. In all

probability he might have been unable to work for a period of 8

months. Therefore, loss of earning would be = ₹15,000/- x 8 =

₹1,20,000/-.

Bystander's expenses

An amount of ₹28,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal has

granted an amount of ₹20,000/-, that is ₹250/- per day for 80

days. The incident took place on 03/04/2017. He was hospitalised

for a period of 25 days. Hence, I find that bystander's expenses at 2025:KER:42696

the rate of ₹500/- per day for a period of 25 days can be granted,

that is, ₹500/- x 25 = ₹12,500/-. Considering the fact that the

amount granted by the Tribunal is higher, no modification under

this head is called for.

Future treatment

No amount was claimed under this head. However, the

Tribunal granted an amount of ₹50,000/-. This again is pointed

out to be on the lower side. My attention is also drawn to the

cross examination of PW1, a suggestion wherein it is stated that

the second respondent/insurer has admitted that future treatment

expenses would come to ₹1,50,000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal

went wrong in fixing the amount as ₹50,000/-, goes the argument.

Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the second

respondent/insurer that there is neither pleadings nor proof

regarding the expenses incurred for future treatment. Despite that

the Tribunal has granted an amount of ₹50,000/- and therefore, no 2025:KER:42696

further enhancement is required.

In the cross examination, the suggestion put to PW1 was

that the operation would cost less than ₹1,50,000/- and that by

influencing the doctor, the claim petitioner has produced a

certificate which shows the amount to be much higher. ( ഈ പറഞoperation -ന ഒനര ലക ര പയ ൽത ഴ മ തതമമ ഴ ലവ

വര കയ ള എന $ റ അത ൽ ക ട തൽ ആക ഴമന മ" കഴ

സ& ധ(ന ച ക*തത മമ യ കരസ മ ക യ ട ളത മ ഴ.ന

പറഞ ൽ അതമ/ ശര . (Q) അ/ . (Ans)). This was of course

denied by PW1.

The suggestion put makes it clear that there is no

admission to the effect that the surgical procedure would cost

₹1,54,000/-. Taking into account the injuries sustained and the

hospitalisation undergone, an amount of ₹75,000/- towards future

treatment expenses would be just and reasonable with interest at

the rate of 8% per annum from the date of Award till realization

and proportionate costs.

2025:KER:42696

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/- ₹66,000/- ₹1,20,000/-

           earnings                                        (₹15,000/- x 8)
2.       Transport to        ₹20,000/-        ₹6,400/-         ₹6,400/-
           hospital                                        (No modification)
3.          Extra            ₹10,000/-        ₹4,000/-         ₹4,000/-
         nourishment                                       (No modification)
4.        Damage to           ₹2,000/-        ₹1,000/-         ₹1,000/-
           clothing                                        (No modification)
5.         Medical           ₹5,00,000/-     ₹2,37,156/-     ₹2,37,156/-
           expenses
                                              ₹93,450/-       ₹93,450/-
                                                           (No modification)
6.     Future treatment         .....           ₹50,000/-       ₹75,000/-
7.       Bystander's         ₹28,000/-        ₹20,000/-       ₹20,000/-
          expenses                                                (No
                                                            modification)
8.         Pain and          ₹1,00,000/-      ₹70,000/-       ₹70,000/-
           suffering                                       (No modification)
 9.     Compensation        ₹30,00,000/-     ₹3,32,640/-      ₹4,53,600
        for disability                                     (₹15,000 x 12 x 14
                                                                 x18%)
10.     Compensation         ₹3,00,000/-      ₹40,000/-       ₹40,000/-
         for loss of                                       (No modification)
          amenities
            Total           ₹35,00,000/-     ₹9,20,646/-    ₹11,20,606/-
                                                     2025:KER:42696

In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the

compensation by a further amount of ₹1,99,960/- (total

compensation ₹11,20,606/- that is, ₹9,20,646/- granted by the

Tribunal + ₹1,99,960/- 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 208 days delay in filing the appeal) and

proportionate costs excluding an amount of ₹75,000/- granted

under the head of future treatment. Under the said head, the

computation of interest will be from the date of Award. The

second respondent/insurance company 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 making

deductions, if any.