Kerala High Court
Ramla vs Koyakutty on 21 May, 2025
2025:KER:35510
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2025 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1947
MACA NO. 171 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 11.06.2021 IN OPMV
NO.772 OF 2018 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
RAMLA
AGED 46 YEARS
W/O.ABDUNASAR, PULASSERI HOUSE,
VALAMBUR AMSOM, ARIPRA DESOM,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM - 679 321.
BY ADV R.SREEHARI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 KOYAKUTTY
S/O.POCKER, THACHARAKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, VALLIKKAPATTA,
KOTTILANGADI POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 506.
2 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
DIV.NO.10, FLAT NO.101-106, NI, BMC HOUSE, CANNAUGHT
PLACE, NEW DELHI REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
BRANCH OFFICE, CALICUT ROAD, MANJERI POST, MALAPPURAM
DIST. - 676 121.
BY ADV KIRAN PETER KURIAKOSE
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN COME UP
FOR HEARING ON 21.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 171 OF 2022 2
2025:KER:35510
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 772 of 2018 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, has preferred this appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal on
account of the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident that
occurred on 26.03.2018.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:-
On 26.03.2018, at around 2.45 p.m., while the petitioner
was standing on the side of Perinthalmanna - Malappuram public
road, a car bearing registration No. KL-53-F-9619 driven by the 1st
respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the petitioner. Due
to the impact of the hit, the petitioner was thrown onto the road
causing severe injuries on her.
3. The owner cum driver of the offending car was arrayed as
1st respondent, whereas, the insurer of the car was arrayed as the
2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent contested the petition by filing
a written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation
claimed, despite admitting insurance coverage for the car involved
in the accident.
4. During trial, the documents produced from the side of the
2025:KER:35510
petitioner were marked as Ext.A1 to A8. The disability certificate
issued by the medical board was marked as Ext.X1. No evidence,
whatsoever, was adduced from the side of the respondents.
5. After trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the
accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the
car bearing registration No. KL-53-F-9619 by the 1st respondent and
being the insurer, the 2nd respondent was held liable to pay the
compensation. The compensation was quantified at Rs. 15,29,100/-
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.
6. Heard Sri.R.Sreehari, the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and Sri.Kiran Peter Kuriakose, the learned standing
counsel for the 2nd respondent.
7. 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 is too meager and will
2025:KER:35510
not commensurate with the nature of the injuries sustained by the
petitioner. According to the counsel, the tribunal erred in awarding
reasonable amount as compensation under the heads of pain and
sufferings, loss of amenities and enjoyment in life etc. Per contra
learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, insurance company, would
submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under every
head is just, fair, and reasonable and hence, warrants no
interference.
8. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that for the
purpose of determining compensation under the head of permanent
disability and loss of earnings, the tribunal assessed the monthly
income of the petitioner at Rs. 11,500/-. In the petition, it was
contended that the petitioner was a tailor by profession at the time
of the accident and was earning a monthly income of Rs. 15,000/-.
Apart from taking such a bare contention in the petition, no
evidence whatsoever has been produced from the side of the
petitioner to substantiate her contentions regarding her occupation
and income. I am not unmindful of the fact that it is not prudent to
expect that a lady doing tailoring work in her home could produce
documentary evidence to prove her income and occupation.
2025:KER:35510
Anyhow, it was after 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. 11,500/-. I am of the
view that the income assessed by the tribunal is justifiable and no
interference is warranted in that regard.
9. In order to prove that the petitioner had suffered
permanent disability, a disability certificate issued by the medical
board is marked in evidence as Ext.X1. A perusal of the disability
certificate shows that the petitioner has suffered a permanent
disability of 51% due to the injuries sustained in the accident. It
was mainly relying on Ext. X1 disability certificate, the tribunal
entered into a finding regarding the amount of compensation
awardable under the head of permanent disability. The percentage
of disability noted in the medical certificate is seen applied by the
tribunal while awarding such an amount. Therefore, no interference
is required in the compensation awarded by the tribunal under the
head of permanent disability.
10. Anyhow, the treatment records reveal that the petitioner
2025:KER:35510
had sustained the following injuries in the accident;
● crush foot injury with complete dislocation of 1st and 2nd
meta tarsal from MTP joint and TMT joint with complete tear
of FHL;
● EHB and EDL of 2nd toe;
● oesteo chondral loss of medial cuneiform;
● degloving of skin;
● dorsum of foot right and lacerated wound right proximal
leg.
Of course, the injuries sustained by the petitioner are serious
nature. Defenitely, those injuries would have a telling impact on the
earning capacity of the petitioner, especially when she is affected
with a permanent disability of 51%. Therefore, I am of the view that
a reasonable amount must be awarded under the head of loss of
earnings. The nature of the injuries suggests that the petitioner
would have been prevented from doing any job or earning any
income at least for a period of 12 months. But the tribunal awarded
loss of earnings only for a period of 6 months. The same is not
justifiable. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled
to get an amount of Rs. 1,38,000/- (Rs. 11,500/- x 12) as
compensation under the head of loss of earnings. Already an
amount of Rs. 69,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal under the
2025:KER:35510
said head. After deducting the said amount, the petitioner is
entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 69,000/- (Rupees
Sixty nine thousand only) under the head of loss of earnings.
11. The nature of the injuries itself is self-speaking regarding
the pain and sufferings endured by the petitioner due to the injuries
sustained in the accident. Already, the tribunal awarded an amount
of Rs.40,000/- as compensation under the head of pain and
sufferings. Given the serious nature of the injuries and the
complicated and serious treatment procedures underwent by the
petitioner, I am of the view that the compensation awarded under
the said head is too meager. Hence, in order to adequately
compensate the petitioner for the pain and sufferings endured by
her, I am of the view that an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is to be
awarded under the said head. Resultantly, the petitioner is entitled
to get an additional compensation of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty
thousand only) under the head of pain and sufferings.
12. The treatment records as well as the other medical records
pressed into service from the side of the petitioner, show that she
had undergone 5 days of inpatient treatment. Moreover, she was
constrained to visit the hospital for follow-ups. The inconveniences
2025:KER:35510
and hardships met by her in connection with the injuries sustained
in the accident could not be overlooked while awarding
compensation under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment in
life. It is true that no amount is claimed in the petition towards
compensation under the said head. However, now, by a series of
judicial pronouncements, it is well settled that it is incumbent upon
the court to ensure that the compensation awarded is just, fair,
adequate, and reasonable, irrespective of the claim made by the
parties. Therefore, though no amount is claimed under the head of
loss of amenities and enjoyment in life, I am of the view that in the
interest of justice, an amount of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty
thousand only) is to be awarded under the said head as well.
13. The compensation awarded by the tribunal under other
heads appears to be reasonable and justifiable and hence, no
interference is warranted. Hence, an amount of Rs. 1,69,000/-
(Rs. 69,000/- + Rs. 60,000/- + Rs. 40,000/-) 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. 1,69,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand
2025:KER:35510
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.
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
this judgment.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
