Kerala High Court
Arun.M.P vs Raja Prabahar.T on 18 June, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.710 of 2020
1
2025:KER:43404
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1947
MACA NO. 710 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 15/12/2018 IN OPMV NO.819 OF
2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
PATHANAMTHITTA.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ARUN.M.P
AGED 37 YEARS,
SNEHA NAGAR HOUSE,
AYATHIL P.O., VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE,
KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.K.KOSHY
SHRI.SABU I.KOSHY
SMT.SNEHA SUKUMARAN MULLAKKAL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 RAJA PRABAHAR.T,
S/O.THENGOM NADAR, 693.A.,
AVUDAISIVAN PATTI, AVUDAIYANOOR P.O.,
THENKASI TALUK, THIRUNELVELI DISTRICT,
PIN-627808.
2 RAJAN P.,
S/O.PONNUSAMY NADAR, 4/122,
MADIRAJAPALAYAM, AVUDAIYANOOR,
THENKASI, THIRUNELVELI DISTRICT,
PIN-627808.
M.A.C.A.No.710 of 2020
2
2025:KER:43404
3 MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, VISHU BUILDING,
K.P.VALLON ROAD, KADAVANTARA,
COCHIN II, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682020.
BY ADV.K.S.SANTHI
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 18.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.710 of 2020
3
2025:KER:43404
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.710 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th 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.819/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Pathanamthitta (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount
of compensation granted by Award dated 15/12/2018. 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
01/04/2015 at about 06:30 p.m., while he was riding motorcycle
bearing registration no.KL-02-AU-1447 through Kayamkulam-
Punalur public road and when he reached the place by name
Ambady Junction, bus bearing registration no.TN-76-A-4298
2025:KER:43404
driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner
knocked him down, as a result of which he sustained grievous
injuries.
3. The first respondent-driver and second
respondent-owner remained ex parte.
4. The third respondent/insurer filed written
statement admitting the policy but denying negligence on the part
of the first respondent. The allegation in the petition regarding
age, disability, nature of injuries, period of treatment, occupation
and income were denied.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was
adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A10 were marked on the side
of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was adduced
by the respondents.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found
negligence on the part of the first respondent-driver of the
offending bus resulting in the incident and hence awarded an
2025:KER:43404
amount of ₹3,01,140/- 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 are challenged by the claim petitioner-
Notional Income
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim
petitioner that the latter, a business man aged 33 years was
earning an amount of ₹40,000/- per month. The Tribunal fixed
₹7,500/- as the notional income, which even going by the dictum
in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236 is quite low and hence
needs to be appropriately enhanced.
2025:KER:43404
Though the claim was for ₹40,000/-, no evidence was
adduced to substantiate the same. However, taking into account
the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), I find that fixing
₹10,000/- as notional income would be just and reasonable.
Pain and sufferings
Materials on record show that the following are the
injuries sustained by the claim petitioner -
• Fracture shaft of femur right.
• Abrasion over right side 2 cm proximal to ankle.
• Lacerated wound of 3 x0.5x0.5 cm on right arm.
• Lacerated wound over 2 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm over right forearm.
• Contusion over right leg.
He was hospitalised for a period of six days. In the light of the
injuries sustained, period of hospitalisation and the medical
interventions he had to undergo, I find that an amount of
₹40,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable.
Loss of amenities and enjoyment in life
In the light of the injuries sustained, I find that an amount
of ₹20,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable.
2025:KER:43404
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 ₹95,000/- ₹1,500/- ₹20,000/-
earnings (₹10,000/- x 2)
2. Transport to ₹22,000/- ₹1,000/- ₹1,000/-
hospital (No modification)
3. Extra ₹8,000/- ₹1,500/- ₹1,500/-
nourishment (No modification)
4. Damage to ₹15,000/- ₹1,000/- ₹1,000/-
clothing (No modification)
5. Medical ₹1,90,000/- ₹1,33,940/- ₹1,33,940/-
expenses (No modification)
6. Bystander's ₹15,000/- ₹1,500/- ₹1,500/-
expenses (No modification)
7. Pain and ₹1,00,000/- ₹25,000/- ₹40,000/-
suffering
8. Compensation ₹6,80,000/- ₹1,15,200/- ₹1,53,600/-
for permanent (₹10,000 x 12 x 16 x
disability 8/100)
2025:KER:43404
9. Compensation ₹80,000/- ₹7,000/- ₹20,000/-
for loss of
amenities and
enjoyment of
life
Total ₹16,00,250/- ₹3,01,140/- ₹3,72,540/-
(On calculation
₹12,05,000/-) (On
limited to calculation
₹6,00,250/- ₹2,87,640/-)
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹84,900/- (total
compensation ₹3,72,540/- that is, ₹2,87,640/- granted by the
Tribunal + ₹84,900/- 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 205 days delay in filing the appeal) and
proportionate costs. The third 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.
2025:KER:43404
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
Jms
