Kerala High Court
Abin Sivadasan vs S.R.Subhash on 26 June, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.683 of 2020
1
2025:KER:46230
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1947
MACA NO. 683 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 31.12.2018 IN OPMV NO.2751 OF
2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ABIN SIVADASAN,
AGED 24 YEARS,
S/O. SIVADASAN, NALUKANDATHIL HOUSE, VELANGARATHARA
LANE, NALANCHIRA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN 695 015.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN
SMT.V.S.RAKHEE
SMT.K.J.GISHA
SMT.SAYUJYA RADHAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 S.R.SUBHASH,
S/O. RAVEENDRAN, AVITTAM VEEDU, AMPALATHINAL,
MELOODU P.O, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN 691 523.
2 THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
ST.JOSEPH'S BUILDING, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 014.
BY ADV. GEORGE A. CHERIAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 26.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.683 of 2020
2
2025:KER:46230
C.S.SUDHA, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.683 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th 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.2751/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Thiruvananthapuram (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of
compensation granted by Award dated 31/12/2018. 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 19/08/2016 at
about 03:30 p.m., he was riding his scooter bearing registration
No.KL-26/C-9138 through the Meloodu-Karampala road and when
he reached near the house by name "Avittam", scooter bearing
registration No.KL-26/6246 ridden by the first respondent in a rash
2025:KER:46230
and negligent manner knocked him down as a result of which he
sustained grievous injuries. An amount of ₹5,00,000/- was claimed as
compensation under various heads.
3. The first respondent/owner-cum-rider remained ex
parte.
4. The second respondent/insurer filed written
statement admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part of
the first respondent/rider. 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 A14 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/rider of the offending vehicle resulting in the
incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹2,49,650/- together with
2025:KER:46230
interest @ 8% 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.
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
The monthly income of the claim petitioner, a 21 year old
B.Com final year student was claimed to be ₹7,000/-. The Tribunal
fixed the notional income at ₹5,000/- only, which is quite low and
hence needs to be appropriately enhanced, argues the learned counsel
for the claim petitioner. Reference was made to the dictum in
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vijayakumari, 2021 (5)
KHC 390 in support of the argument that the notional income needs
to be raised to ₹12,000/-. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned
2025:KER:46230
counsel for the second respondent/insurer that the facts in the said case
are different and therefore, the dictum in the said case cannot be
applicable to the facts of the present case.
9.1. In Vijayakumari (Supra) the deceased was a 19
year old engineering student, whose notional income was fixed by the
Tribunal at ₹12,000/- per month. The materials on record in the said
case showed that he was a final year student of Diploma in Electronics
and that he had been selected for a job in an interview held in the
campus. In the light of the materials on record, the notional income
was fixed at ₹12,000/- per month.
9.2. In the case on hand the claim petitioner herein was
only a final year B.Com student unlike in the case of Vijayakumari
(Supra). However, in the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa v.
Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 13
SCC 236, I find that in the absence of any evidence, the notional
income can be fixed at ₹10,500/- per month.
Bystander expenses
10. The materials on record show that the claim
2025:KER:46230
petitioner sustained the following injuries:-
"1. Moteggia fracture left forearm.
2. Dislocation left hand (type- I baso)
3. Edema upper forearm (Left)"
He was hospitalized for a period of 10 days. The accident occurred on
19/08/2016. Therefore, I find that towards bystander expenses he can
be awarded an amount of ₹450/- per day for a period of 10 days, that
is, ₹450/-x10 days=₹4,500/-.
Compensation for pain and suffering
11. An amount of ₹35,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal
granted an amount of ₹25,000/-. In the light of the injuries sustained
and the period of hospitalization, I find that an amount of ₹35,000/-
under this head would be just and reasonable.
12. 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 earnings ₹42,000/- ₹20,000/- ₹42,000/-
(₹10,500/-x4
months)
2 Transport to ₹4,000/- ₹3,000/- ₹3,000/-
hospital (No
2025:KER:46230
modification)
3 Extra nourishment ₹5,000/- ₹2,500/- ₹2,500/-
(No
modification)
4 Damages to ₹25,000/- ₹500/- ₹500/-
clothing & other (No
articles modification)
5 Medical expenses ₹1,50,000/- ₹1,11,900/- ₹1,11,900/-
(No
modification)
6 Charges for ₹5,000/- ₹2,500/- ₹4,500/-
bystander (₹450/-x10
days)
7 Compensation for ₹35,000/- ₹25,000/- ₹35,000/-
pain and sufferings
8 Compensation for ₹2,00,000/- ₹64,800/- ₹1,36,080/-
continuing or (₹10,500/-
permanent x12x18x6%)
disability and loss
of income
9 Compensation for ₹50,000/- ₹19,450/- ₹19,450/-
loss of amenities (No
in life modification)
10 Compensation for ₹1,00,000/- Nil Nil
loss of future (No
prospect of life modification)
Total ₹6,16,000/- ₹2,49,650/- ₹3,54,930/-
(Claim is limited
to ₹5,00,000/-
only)
2025:KER:46230
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹1,05,280/- (total compensation
₹3,54,930/-, that is, ₹2,49,650/- granted by the Tribunal + ₹1,05,280/-
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/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
