Kerala High Court
Alexander vs Balaravi on 18 June, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.363 of 2020
1
2025:KER:43264
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. 363 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 31.05.2019 IN OPMV NO.980 OF
2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
ALAPPUZHA.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ALEXANDER,
AGED 71 YEARS,
KODAVATHARA VEEDU,
MUTTAR.P.O, MUTTAR.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
SRI.A.R.DILEEP
SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 BALARAVI,
KONNOTHU VEEDU, CHUNKAM WARD,
PAZHAVEEDU, ALAPPUZHA-688001.
2 SELVI,
552A, CHARUVILA VEEDU, 12,
THRIKKOVIL VATTOM, KOLLAM-691001.
3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
BRANCH OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.
BY ADV SMT.K.S.SANTHI, SC
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.363 of 2020
2
2025:KER:43264
C.S.SUDHA, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.363 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of June 2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(the Act) has been filed by the claim petitioner in O.P.(MV)
No.980/13 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Alappuzha, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of
compensation granted by Award dated 31/05/2019. 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 30/01/2013, while
he was walking through the side of Alappuzha-Changanacherry
public road, a pick van bearing registration No.KL-42 V-1121 driven
by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him
down as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. An amount
2025:KER:43264
of ₹3,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.
3. The first respondent/driver and the second respondent
remained ex parte.
4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement
admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part of the first
respondent/driver. The age, occupation and income were disputed. It
was also contended that the amount claimed was excessive.
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. 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 first respondent/driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the
incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹1,46,977/- together with
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of
realisation with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the
claim petitioner has come up in appeal.
2025:KER:43264
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 agriculturist aged 64 years was earning an amount
of ₹6,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has fixed the notional
income at ₹4,000/- which even going by the dictum in
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 13 SCC 236, is quite low and so it may
be appropriately enhanced.
In the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), I find
that the notional income can be fixed at ₹9,000/- per month.
Loss of earning
Ext.A2 discharge certificate shows that the claim petitioner has
2025:KER:43264
sustained the following injuries:-
"Traumatic brain injury, subarachnoid
haemorrhage ® frontal haemorrhagic
contusion."
He was hospitalized for a period of 17 days in two different spells.
Therefore, taking into account the materials on record, I find that in
all probability he might have been unable to work for a period of 6
months and therefore, the compensation under this head would be
₹9,000/- x 6 months=₹54,000/-.
Compensation for pain and suffering
An amount of ₹50,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal granted an
amount of ₹10,000/-. In the light of the nature of injuries sustained,
I find that an amount of ₹20,000/- under this head would be just and
reasonable.
Compensation for loss of amenities
An amount of ₹50,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal granted an
amount of ₹15,000/-. Ext.X1 disability certificate issued from the
Govt. T. D. Medical College Hospital, Vandanam, Alappuzha shows
that he has recurrent headaches and has walking difficulties also. In
2025:KER:43264
the light of the disabilities sustained and in the nature of the
avocation of the claim petitioner, I find that an amount ₹20,000/-
under this head would be just and reasonable.
Percentage of disability
As per Ext.X1, the claim petitioner has sustained 15%
disability. The Tribunal fixed the disability as 10%. According to the
learned counsel for the claim petitioner this scaling down has been
done by the Tribunal without giving any reasons for the same and
hence the same is not justified.
Ext.X1 certificate reads -
"H/o RTA on 31/3/13. Traumatic brain injury
(discharge certificate) Now c/o recurrent
headache, walking difficulty ® frontal contusion
injury while walking. O/E patient has mild ataxia
® >(L), hypotonia (L)side Evacuation of SDH
on 1/5/13 power 5/5. He is assessed to have
about 15% of permanent neurological
disability."
The claim petitioner being an agriculturist, the aforesaid
difficulties caused would certainly have affected his work.
Therefore, the disability can be fixed at 15% as per Ext.X1.
2025:KER:43264
10. The impugned Award is modified to the following
extent :
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in
No claimed Awarded appeal
by
Tribunal
PART-I
a) Loss of earnings ₹35,000/- ₹12,000/- ₹54,000/-
(₹9,000/-x6 months)
b) Transport to ₹10,000/- ₹3,000/- ₹3,000/-
hospital (No modification)
c) Extra ₹10,000/- ₹1,000/- ₹1,000/-
nourishment (No modification)
d) Damage to ₹1,000/- ₹1,000/- ₹1,000/-
clothing and (No modification)
articles
e) Medical expenses ₹1,00,000/- ₹69,877/- ₹69,877/-
(No modification)
f) Bystander ₹5,000/- ₹1,500/- ₹1,500/-
expenses (No modification)
PART-II
g) Compensation for ₹50,000/- ₹10,000/- ₹20,000/-
pain and
suffering
h) Compensation for ₹80,000/- ₹33,600/- ₹1,13,400/-
permanent
disability and loss (₹9,000/-x7x 12x
of earning power 15/100)
i) Compensation for ₹50,000/- ₹15,000/- ₹20,000/-
loss of amenities
of life
Total ₹3,41,000/- ₹1,46,977/- ₹2,83,777/-
Limited to
₹3,00,000/-
2025:KER:43264
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹1,36,800/- (total
compensation ₹2,83,777/-, that is, ₹1,46,977/- granted by the
Tribunal + ₹1,36,800/- 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 third respondent/insurer is directed to
deposit the compensation with interest and costs before the Tribunal
within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the
judgment. On deposit of the compensation 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
ak
