Kerala High Court
Ganesh Babu vs Icici Lambard Insurance on 26 June, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.1025 of 2020
1
2025:KER:46343
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. 1025 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 14.05.2020 IN OPMV NO.1502 OF
2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
KOZHIKODE.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
GANESH BABU,
AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O.VELAYUDHAN, MANAL HOUSE,
RAHIMAN BAZAR, CHERUVANNUR,
NEAR DISPENSARY, KOLATHARA, PIN-673 655.
BY ADV SRI.N.V.P.RAFEEQUE
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.2:
ICICI LAMBARD INSURANCE
SECOND FLOOR, CITY PLAZA,
YMCA CROSS ROAD, KOZHIKODE,
KERALA, REP BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
PIN-673 001.(INSURER OF GOODS VEHICLE BEARING
NO.KL-11-AK-3253).
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT 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.1025 of 2020
2
2025:KER:46343
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.1025 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th 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.1502/2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Kozhikode (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of
compensation granted by Award dated 14/05/2020. The
respondent herein is the second respondent 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
28/02/2014 at about 10:00 a.m., while he was riding motorcycle
bearing registration no.KL-11-AL-9159 from Kolathara to
Cheruvannur and reached near Steel Complex, goods vehicle
bearing registration no. KL-11-AK-3253 driven by the first
respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down as
2025:KER:46343
a result of which he sustained serious injuries.
3. The first respondent-owner cum driver of the
offending vehicle filed written statement denying negligence on
his part.
4. The second respondent-insurer filed written
statement admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part
of the first respondent-driver. The amount claimed under various
heads was contended to be exorbitant.
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 vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an
amount of ₹3,18,000/- together with interest @ 8% per annum
from the date of the petition till realisation along with
2025:KER:46343
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 businessman was earning ₹15,000/- per
month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at
₹7,000/- only, which is quite low and hence needs to be
appropriately enhanced. The learned counsel for the second
respondent-insurer submits that in case the court is inclined to
enhance the notional income, it may be going by the dictum in
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236.
2025:KER:46343
9.1. Though the claim petitioner was stated to be a
businessman earning ₹15,000/- per month, no evidence was
adduced to substantiate the same. Therefore going by the dictum
in Ramachandrappa (Supra) the notional income can be fixed at
₹9,500/- per month.
Loss of earnings
10. The materials on record show that following are
the injuries sustained by the claim petitioner-
"Spinal fracture both bones lower 1/3 left leg and
penetrating injury upper 1/3 left arm."
He was hospitalized for a period of 5 days. In all probability, he
might have been unable to work for a period of 6 months.
Therefore, he would be entitled to an amount for loss of earnings
for a period of six months. (₹ 9,500 x 6 = 57,000/-).
Pain and suffering
11. An amount of ₹2,00,000/- was claimed. The
Tribunal granted an amount of ₹20,000/-. In the light of the
2025:KER:46343
injuries sustained and the medical interventions he had to
undergo, I find that an amount of ₹40,000/- under the head pain
and suffering would be just and reasonable.
Loss of amenities
An amount of ₹2,50,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal
granted an amount of ₹20,000/-. In the facts and circumstance of
the case, I find that the reasonable and just compensation would
be ₹ 40,000/-.
12. The impugned Award is modified to the
following extent:
Sl. Head of claim Amount claimed Amount Modified in
No. Awarded by appeal
Tribunal
(in ₹) (in ₹) (in ₹)
1. Loss of earning 3,00,000/- 1,76,400/- 2,39,400/-
power (9,500 x 12 x 14x
15/100)
2. Medical bills 50,000/- 56,000/- 56,000/-
(No
modification)
3. Bystander's 25,000/- 2,500/- 2,500/-
expenses (No
modification)
4. Loss of 1,00,000/- 14,000/- 57,000/-
earnings
(9,500 x 6)
2025:KER:46343
5. Pain and 2,00,000/- 20,000/- 40,000/-
sufferings
6. Loss of 2,50,000/- 20,000/- 40,000/-
amenities
7. Transport to 10,000/- 2,000/- 2,000/-
hospital (No
modification)
8. Extra 50,000/- 2,000/- 2,000/-
nourishment (No
modification)
9. Future Nil 25,000/- 25,000/-
treatment (No
modification)
Total Limited to 3,17,900/- 4,63,900/-
5,00,000/- rounded off
to 3,18,000/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹1,45,900/- (total
compensation ₹4,63,900/- that is, ₹3,18,000/- granted by the
Tribunal + ₹1,45,900/- 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
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
2025:KER:46343
accordance with law after making deductions, if any.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
Jms
