Kerala High Court
T. G. Radhamaniyamma vs Sebin on 16 June, 2025
2025:KER:42616
M.A.C.A.No.714 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. 714 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 17.09.2019 IN OPMV NO.351 OF
2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
T. G. RADHAMANIYAMMA,
AGED 73 YEARS,
W/O. RAVEENDRAN,
RADHIKA BHAVAN,
RED SQUARE BHAGOM,
PERUNNA P. O.,
CHANGANACHERRY.
BY ADV SHRI.P.M.JOSHI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SEBIN
S/O. KUNJUMON,
POUVATHUKADINCHIRA HOUSE,
KANNADY P. O., PULINKUNNU,
KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA,
PIN - 688 504.
2025:KER:42616
M.A.C.A.No.714 of 2020
2
2 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
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:42616
M.A.C.A.No.714 of 2020
3
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.714 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.351/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Kottayam (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of
compensation granted by Award dated 17/09/2019. 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
04/12/2015 at 08:00 p.m., while she was walking through
2025:KER:42616
Alappuzha - Changanacherry road and when she reached the
place by name Red Square bhagom, motorcycle bearing
registration no.KL-66/7871 ridden by the first respondent in a
rash and negligent manner knocked her down, as a result of which
she sustained grievous injuries.
3. The first respondent-owner cum rider of the
motorcycle remained ex parte.
4. The second respondent/insurer filed written
statement admitting the policy. It was contended that as the first
respondent had no valid driving license at the time of the incident,
the policy condition had been violated. The amount of
compensation claimed was contended to be exorbitant.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was
adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on the side
of the claim petitioner and Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the
2025:KER:42616
second respondent.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found
negligence on the part of the first respondent-rider of the
offending motorcycle resulting in the incident and hence awarded
an amount of ₹1,00,190/- 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.
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 is challenged by the claim petitioner-
2025:KER:42616
Notional Income
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim
petitioner that the latter, a lady aged 73 years was conducting a
private tuition center earning ₹10,000/- per month. However, the
Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹6,000/- only, which is
quite low and hence needs to be appropriately enhanced.
No evidence was produced to substantiate the allegation
regarding monthly income. In the light of the dictum in
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236, the notional income is
fixed at ₹10,000/-.
Loss of earnings
Exts.A4 and A5, the wound certificate and discharge
summary respectively show that the claim petitioner had
sustained fracture distal end of left radius. She was hospitalised
2025:KER:42616
for a period of 5 days. It is also brought to my notice by the
learned counsel for the claim petitioner that there was an implant
as well as removal of the same and hence, the period of six
months taken for loss of earning is too short a period.
In the light of the injuries sustained and the period of
hospitalisation, I find that the claim petitioner probably might
have been unable to work for a period of about eight months.
Therefore, the compensation would be ₹10,000/- x 8 = ₹80,000/-
Bystander's expenses
An amount of ₹20,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal
granted an amount of ₹1,250/-, that is, at the rate ₹250/- per day
for five days. The incident took place on 04/12/2015. Hence, I
find that towards bystander's expenses, the amount of
compensation would be ₹400/- x 5 =₹2,000/-.
Pain and sufferings
2025:KER:42616
An amount of ₹1,00,000/- was claimed. ₹25,000/- has
been granted, which is also contended to be on the lower side.
The injury sustained is a fracture, she was hospitalised
for a period of five days. In the light of the injuries sustained and
the medical interventions she had to undergo, I find that an
amount of ₹40,000/- 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 ₹1,20,000/- ₹30,000/- ₹80,000/-
earnings (10,000 x 8)
2. Loss of earning ₹12,000/- Nil Nil
(partial) (No modification)
3. Medical and ₹2,00,000/- ₹40,440/- ₹40,440/-
miscellaneous (No modification)
expense
4. Bystander's 20,000/- 1,250/- ₹2,000/-
expenses (400 x 5)
5. Transportation ₹5,000/- ₹1,500/- ₹1,500/-
expenses (No modification)
2025:KER:42616
6. Extra ₹3,000/- ₹1,000/- ₹1,000/-
nourishment (No modification)
7. Damage to ₹1,000/- ₹1,000/- ₹1,000/-
clothing etc (No modification)
8. Pain and ₹1,00,000/- ₹25,000/- ₹40,000/-
suffering
9. Loss/reduction ₹2,00,000/- Nil
in earning (No modification)
capacity
10. Loss of ₹3,00,000/- Nil
amenities and (No modification)
conveniences
Total ₹9,61,000/- ₹1,00,190/- ₹1,65,940/-
Limited to ₹3,00,000/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹65,750/- (total
compensation ₹1,65,940/- that is, ₹1,00,190/- granted by the
Tribunal + ₹65,750/- 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 second respondent/insurance
company is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount before the
2025:KER:42616
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.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
Jms
