Kerala High Court
Sirajudeen vs Bijeesh on 20 May, 2025
2025:KER:34364
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1947
MACA NO. 22 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.05.2019 IN OPMV
NO.2451 OF 2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SIRAJUDEEN
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O KAMARUDEEN, KUMBALATH VEEDU, KANDATHILPARAMBU,
H NO.20/206, NAMBIAPURAM ROAD, PALLURUTHY,
KOCHI-682006.
BY ADVS.
T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN
T.R.HARI KRISHNAN
S.SREEDEVI(ALP)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:
1 BIJEESH
S/O VELAYUDHAN, PUNNAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
EDAVILANGU, KODUNGALLUR-680671.
2 VAISAKH E. U.
S/O UNNIKRISHNAN E B, EDACHALIL HOUSE,
KAVILAKADAVU, KODUNGALLUR-680664.
3 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
REPRESENTED BY MANAGER, T P CLAIM, CELL,
REG OFF.METRO PALACE, KOCHI-682018.
BY ADV P.K.MANOJKUMAR
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN COME UP
FOR HEARING ON 20.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 22 OF 2022 2
2025:KER:34364
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 2451 of 2016 on the file of
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, has preferred this
appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the
tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor
accident that occurred on 03.01.2016.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:-
On 03.01.2016, at 9.30 a.m., while the petitioner was
riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-43-E-6706 through
Chalakudy - Malakkapara S.H. Public Road, and when reached at
Mukkupuzha, a car bearing registration No.KL-7-AW-1819 driven by
the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the
motorcycle on which the petitioner was riding. Due to the impact of
the hit, the petitioner was thrown onto the road causing severe
injuries on him.
3. The owner and driver of the offending car were arrayed as
1st and 2nd respondents respectively, whereas, the insurer was
arrayed as the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent contested the
petition by filing a written statement mainly disputing the quantum
2025:KER:34364
of compensation claimed, despite admitting insurance coverage for
the car involved in the accident. Petitioner's evidence consists of
Exts. A1 to A10. No evidence, whatsoever was produced from the
side of the respondents.
4. After trial, the tribunal came to a conclusion that the
accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the
car bearing registration No.KL-7-AW-1819 by the 2nd respondent
and being the insurer, the 3rd respondent was held liable to pay the
compensation. The compensation was quantified at Rs. 6,38,130/-
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition
till realisation and proportionate costs. Seeking enhancement of the
said compensation awarded, the petitioner has come up with this
appeal.
5. I heard learned counsel appearing for both sides.
6. From the rival contentions raised, it is gatherable that the
main dispute that revolves around this appeal is with respect to the
quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The learned
counsel for the petitioner would submit that the compensation
awarded by the tribunal under various heads, particularly under the
head of permanent disability is too meager and the tribunal
2025:KER:34364
awarded such a meager amount without considering the gravity and
nature of the injuries sustained to the petitioner in the accident as
well as the consequent hardships and inconveniences met by him.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, the insurance
company, would submit that the compensation awarded by the
tribunal under various heads is just, fair, and reasonable and hence,
warrants no interference.
7. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that for the
purpose of determining compensation under the head of permanent
disability, the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner
at Rs. 11,000/-. Though in the petition, it was claimed that the
petitioner was a tile worker at the time of the accident and earning
a daily income of Rs. 1,000/-, no evidence whatsoever has been
produced to substantiate his contentions regarding his occupation
and income. Anyhow, considering the year of the accident and in
view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the tribunal
assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs. 11,000/-. I am of the
view that the notional income assessed by the tribunal is justifiable
2025:KER:34364
and no interference is warranted in that regard. Moreover, relying
on the disability certificate, which is marked in evidence as Ext.X1,
the tribunal entered into a finding that the petitioner has suffered a
disability of 7% due to the injuries sustained in the accident and
awarded an amount of Rs. 1,57,080/- under the head of permanent
disability. I find no scope for any interference in the compensation
awarded by the tribunal under the head of permanent disability as
the same is justifiable and reasonable. Anyhow, from the medical
and treatment records, it is evident that the petitioner had suffered
Proximal tibia fracture (shatzker type VI) with compartment
syndrome right leg in the accident and ORIF right proximal tibia was
done under SA. Of course, the injuries sustained by the petitioner
are grievous in nature. Furthermore, it is evident that the petitioner
underwent 37 days of inpatient treatment. In the said background,
a reasonable amount must be awarded under the head of loss of
earnings. However, the tribunal awarded loss of earnings only for a
period of six months. Given the nature of the injuries sustained by
the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner would have been
prevented from doing any job or earning any income for at least for
eight months. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to get an additional
2025:KER:34364
compensation of Rs. 22,000/- (Rs. 11,000/- x 2) under the head of
loss of earnings.
8. The nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner
itself is self-speaking regarding the pain and sufferings endured by
him in connection with the accident. Already an amount of
Rs. 70,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal under the said head.
I am of the view that the amount awarded by the tribunal under the
said head is on the lower side. Hence, an additional compensation of
Rs. 15,000/- is to be awarded under the said head as well.
9. Similarly, as the petitioner had undergone 37 days of
inpatient treatment, the inconvenience and hardships met by him in
connection with the accident and the treatment procedure
undergone by him should not have been overlooked by the tribunal
while awarding compensation. I am of the view that the amount of
Rs. 60,000/- awarded by the tribunal under the head of loss of
amenities and enjoyment in life is on the lower side. Hence, an
amount of Rs. 10,000/- is to be awarded as additional compensation
under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life.
10. The compensation awarded by the tribunal under other
heads appears to be reasonable and justifiable and hence, no
2025:KER:34364
interference is warranted. Hence, an amount of Rs. 47,000/-
(Rs.22,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.10,000/-) has to be added
towards the compensation awarded by the tribunal.
In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the
appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further
amount of Rs. 47,000/- (Rupees Forty Seven Thousand only) 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 227 days, i.e., the period of
delay in preferring this appeal and as directed by this Court on
10.01.2022 in C.M. Appln. No.1/2022. The 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
ANS
