Kerala High Court
Rajkumar Michael @ Raju vs The Divisional Manager on 6 March, 2025
2025:KER:19770
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946
MACA NO. 1078 OF 2021
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 25.09.2019 IN OPMV NO.123 OF
2016 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE OP(MV):
RAJKUMAR MICHAEL @ RAJU
AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. MICHAEL,
KOCHUTHUNDIL HOUSE, PANNIYALI MURI,
OMALLOOR P.O., KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA.
BY ADVS.
T.K.BIJU (MANJINIKARA)
SMT.ANNIE M.ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT IN THE OP(MV):
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM-691 001.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 06.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA No.1078/2021
2
2025:KER:19770
EASWARAN S., J.
---------------------------------------------------------
MACA No.1078 of 2021
----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2025
JUDGMENT
The appeal arises out of the award passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta in O.P(MV) No.123 of
2016.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the
appeal are as follows:
The appellant, claiming to be a fish vendor, approached the
Tribunal seeking compensation on account of the accident that
occurred on 02.11.2015, while he was travelling in a motorcycle
bearing Reg.No.KL.26/F-2349 through Pathanamthitta -
Kaipattoor public road and when he reached near Military
Canteen, Omalloor, a car bearing Reg.No.KL.03.R.8412, driven in
a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle. As
a result of the accident, the claimant sustained severe injuries.
The injuries resulted in the permanent disability of the appellant,
2025:KER:19770
which was sought to be proved through Exts.A1 to A12
documents. More particularly, Ext.A8, being the Disability
Certificate issued by the Standing Disability Assessment Board,
General Hospital, Pathanamthitta, which shows the percentage of
permanent disability at 50%. No oral or documentary evidence
were adduced on the side of the Insurance Company. On
appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal proceeded to fix the
notional income of the appellant at Rs.9,000/-, reduced the
percentage of disability to 32% on the ground that Ext.A8 does
not reflect the whole body disability and granted a total
compensation of Rs.6,71,210/-.
3. Aggrieved by the insufficiency in the grant of
compensation, the claimant has approached this Court in the
present appeal.
4. Heard, Sri.T.K.Biju [Manjinikara] - learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant and Sri.Lal K.Jospeh -
learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.
5. On a consideration of the rival submissions raised
across the Bar, this Court finds that the Tribunal was not justified
2025:KER:19770
in fixing the notional income at Rs.9,000/-. Going by the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the claimant is
entitled to have the income fixed at Rs.10,000/-.
5. In Manikantan G. v. K.Janardhanan Nair and
Others [2021 (5) KHC 305], this Court held that the Tribunal
cannot reduce the percentage of disability without referring the
claimant to the Medical Board in terms of Rule 387 of the Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989.
6. In Prakash Chand Sharma v. Rambabu Saini [2025
KHC Online 7108], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the
Tribunal cannot unilaterally reduce the percentage of disability
without ordering reassessment of the disability of the claimant.
Therefore, this Court finds that the claimant is entitled to have
the disability fixed at 50% as noted in Ext.A8.
7. Since this Court is restoring the disability fixed by the
Medical Board in Ext.A8 at 50%, the claimant is entitled to the
future prospects on the income. Since the claimant was aged 31
2025:KER:19770
years at the time of the accident, he is entitled for 40% future
prospects.
In the result, the appellant is entitled to succeed. The
appeal is thus allowed. The appellant is entitled for enhanced
compensation as follows:
Heads Amount awarded Total Enhanced amount
by the Tribunal compensation of compensation
awarded in
appeal
Notional income of the appellant is fixed at Rs.10,000/-. Adding 40% future
prospects the income would come to Rs.14,000/-
Loss of earnings 27,000/- 90,000/- 63,000/-
[10000x9]
Bystander's 5,500/- 11,000/- 5,500/-
expenses [500x22] [11000-5500]
Pain and sufferings 40,000/- 55,000/- 15,000/-
[55000-40000]
Loss of amenities & 10,000/- 30,000/- 20,000/-
enjoyment of life [30000-10000]
Compensation for 5,52,960/- 13,44,000/- 7,91,040/-
permanent disability [14000x12x16x50/ [1344000-552960]
100]
Total enhanced amount of compensation 8,94,540/-
Accordingly, the appellant/claimant is awarded an additional
compensation of Rs.8,94,540/- (Rupees eight lakhs ninety four
thousand five hundred forty only) over and above the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal with interest @9% per annum from the
date of petition till realization together with proportionate costs.
2025:KER:19770
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment. While, calculating interest, it is ordered that the
appellants will not be entitled for interest for a period of 46 days,
which represents the period of delay in filing the appeal.
The appeal is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
ACR
