Kerala High Court
Ansar vs Prajeesh on 7 March, 2025
2025:KER:19830
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2025/16TH PHALGUNA, 1946
MACA NO. 1239 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.05.2017 IN OPMV
NO.2458 OF 2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL & SPECIAL
COURT FOR E.C. ACT CASES, THRISSUR.
APPELLANTS:
ANSAR
S/O. ALI, PULIKKAL HOUSE, PULAKKODE DESOM, PULAKKODE
VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 PRAJEESH
S/O. VASU, PLAVALAPPIL HOUSE, PANGARAPPILLY
DESOM,PULAKKODE VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR
DT.
2 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
KOLLANNUR DEVASSY SMARAK BLDG, ROUND WEST, THRISSUR.
BY ADV DEEPA GEORGE
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.1239 of 2018
2025:KER:19830
-2-
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in O.P.(MV)No.2458/2010 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur has preferred this appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on account of the
injuries sustained to his minor son in a motor accident that occurred on
10.12.2007.
2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: On 10.12.2007 at 4
P.M., while the petitioner's minor son was travelling in an autorickshaw
bearing registration No.KL-08/W-5616 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash
and negligent manner and when the autorickshaw reached a place called
Pulakode, the said autorickshaw capsized upside down causing severe
injuries to the petitioner's minor son.
3. The owner cum driver of the offending autorickshaw bearing
registration No.KL-08/W-5616 was arrayed as the 1st respondent, whereas,
the insurer of the said autorickshaw was arrayed as the 2nd respondent. The
2nd respondent filed written statement mainly disputing the quantum of
compensation claimed, despite admitting insurance coverage for the
offending vehicle.
2025:KER:19830
4. During trial, from the side of the petitioner Exts.A1 to A6 were
marked. From the side of the respondents, no evidence, whatsoever, was
produced.
5. After trial, the tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident
occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw
bearing registration No.KL-08/W-5616 by the 1st respondent and, being the
insurer, the 2nd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The
compensation was quantified at Rs.89,500/- with 9% interest per annum
from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. Seeking
enhancement of the compensation awarded by the tribunal, the petitioner
has come up with this appeal.
6. Heard Sri. Sheji P Abraham, the learned counsel for the appellant
and Smt.Deepa George, the learned counsel for the respondent.
7. From the rival contentions raised, it is discernible that the main
dispute that revolves around this appeal is with respect to the quantum of
compensation awarded by the tribunal. Admittedly, the petitioner's minor son
was aged only 9 years at the time of the accident. The disability certificate
issued by a single doctor produced from the side of the petitioner and
marked in evidence as Ext.A6, reveals that the petitioner's minor son had
2025:KER:19830
suffered a disability of 25% due to the injuries sustained by him in the
accident. Moreover, the medical records marked in evidence in this case
reveal that the petitioner's minor son had sustained the following injuries in
the accident:
i) Range of flexion left knee (100) reduced than the right knee (130)
ii) shortening 1 inch left lower limb.
iii) Pain and difficulty on squatting, sitting cross-legged any climbing
stairs.
iv) Radiologically, malunited supra condylar fracture of the left femur.
It is apparent that the injuries sustained by the minor boy are grievous in
nature. Consequently, a reasonable amount should have been awarded by
the Tribunal under the head of permanent disability. However, the tribunal
awarded a meager amount of Rs.30,000/- under the said head. Considering
the minor's age, in the light of the decision in Master Mallikarjun v.
Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another
[2013 KHC 4670] a lumpsum amount of Rs.3,00,000/- can be awarded under
the head of permanent disability. However, the multiplier/multiplicand
method is inapplicable in this case, given the petitioner's son's minority
status. After deducting the already awarded amount of Rs.30,000/- awarded
by the tribunal under the head of permanent disability, the petitioner is
entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- under the said
2025:KER:19830
head.
8. As already stated, the petitioner's minor son had suffered serious
injuries in the accident which ultimately resulted in the shortening of one leg.
Undoubtedly, the injuries sustained by him in the accident would have a
profound impact on his future earning capacity and enjoyment of life. The
nature of the injuries sustained by him is self-evident, reflecting the immense
pain and suffering he endured. Although a lumpsum amount has already
been awarded in accordance with the precedent set in Master
Mallikarjun's case (Supra), this is a case in which there exist special
circumstances which necessitate awarding of separate amounts as
compensation under the head of pain and suffering as well as under the head
of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. Therefore, I am of the view that
an amount of Rs.50,000/- has to be awarded under the head of pain and
suffering entitling the petitioner to get an amount of Rs.20,000/- as
additional compensation under the said head.
9. Moreover, the hardships and inconvenience caused to the
petitioner's minor son due to the accident cannot be overlooked while
awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment
in life. Therefore, I am of the view that an amount of Rs.50,000/- has to be
2025:KER:19830
awarded under the head of loss of amenities in life as well. Already an
amount of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal under the said
head. After deducting the said amount the petitioner is entitled to get an
additional compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the said head.
In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the appeal is
allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of
Rs.3,15,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifteen thousand only) (2,70,000 + 20,000
+ 25,000) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced
compensation from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, after
deducting interest for a period of 127 days, i.e., the period of delay in
preferring this appeal and as directed by this Court on 28.08.2021 in
C.M.Appln.No.1/2018. The 2nd respondent insurance company is ordered to
deposit the enhanced compensation with interest before the tribunal with
proportionate costs within a period of three months from the date of receipt
of the certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ADS
