Kerala High Court
Muhammed Hafees vs Varghese Mathew on 30 May, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.517 of 2020
1
2025:KER:38559
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1947
MACA NO. 517 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 15.05.2019 IN OPMV NO.388 OF 2018
ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM.
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:
MUHAMMED HAFEES,
AGED 23 YEARS,
S/O.MUHAMMED SHAFFI,
PALAKKAPPILLIL HOUSE,
VENNALA P.O., EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE,
KANAYANNUR TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682024.
BY ADV SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 VARGHESE MATHEW
S/O.MATHEW, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE,
EROOR SOUTH P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-682306.
2 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
KOTTAKKAL ARYA VAIDYASALA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD,
ERNAKULAM, PIN-682016.
BY ADV SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 30.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.517 of 2020
2
2025:KER:38559
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.517 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of May 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.388/2018 on the file of the Additional Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam (the Tribunal), aggrieved
by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated
15/05/2019. The respondents herein are the respondents 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
24/10/2017 at about 03:15 p.m, while he was riding motor cycle
bearing registration no.KL-7/CK-762 along Eroor - Puthiya road,
motor cycle bearing registration no.KL-39/2048 driven by the
2025:KER:38559
first respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him
down as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries.
3. The first respondent rider filed written statement
contending that the accident was due to the negligence of the
claim petitioner. It was also contended that the amount of
compensation claimed was excessive.
4. The second respondent/insurer filed written
statement raising the following contentions - There was no
negligence on the part of the first respondent. In fact, negligence
was on the side of the claim petitioner. The age, job, income,
nature of injuries, amount claimed under various heads were
disputed.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was
adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on the side of
the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was adduced by
the second respondent.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the
2025:KER:38559
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found
negligence on the part of the first respondent-rider of the
offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an
amount of ₹2,58,351/- together with interest @ 8% per annum
from the date of the petition till realisation along with
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
The learned counsel for the claim petitioner submits that
the claimant, a 22 year old man was a salesman in a vegetable
shop at the time of the incident, which took place on 24/10/2017.
2025:KER:38559
The monthly income claimed was stated to be ₹50,000/-. The
Tribunal granted only ₹10,500/- which is quite low. According to
her, even going by the decision in Ramachandrappa v.
Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd,
(2011) 13 SCC 236 the notional income of a coolie was liable to
be fixed at ₹11,000/-. Therefore, the amount may be reasonably
enhanced. The submission is opposed by the learned counsel for
the second respondent/insurer, who submits that in the absence of
evidence the amount that has been fixed by the Tribunal is quite
reasonable and does not require any enhancement.
Relying on the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), I
find that the notional income can be fixed at ₹11,000/- per month.
Loss of earnings
Ext.A1 wound certificate and A3 discharge summary
shows that the claim petitioner had sustained the following
injuries-
" 1. Lacerated wound on the forehead.
2. Deep lacerated wound on the left cheek.
2025:KER:38559
3. Lacerated wounds two in number on the right foot.
4. Multiple abrasion on the right elbow, right knee,
left shoulder and left foot."
The Tribunal took three months for assessing the loss of earnings.
This again is challenged by the learned counsel for the claim
petitioner, who submits that loss of earnings at least for a period
of six months ought to have been granted. This submission is
again opposed by the learned counsel for the second
respondent/insurer who submits that in the light of the injuries
sustained, the period of three months granted is more than
sufficient and it does not call for any enhancement.
Taking into account the injuries sustained by the claim
petitioner, I think in all probability he must have been unable to
work for a period of four months and therefore the amount he
would be entitled is ₹11,000/- x 4 = ₹44,000/-.
Compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life
An amount of ₹1,00,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal
granted an amount of ₹10,000/-. This again is challenged and it is
2025:KER:38559
submitted to be on the lower side. The submission is again
opposed by the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer
who submits that an amount of ₹10,000/- granted is more than
sufficient.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that an
amount of ₹15,000/- under this head would be the just
compensation.
The learned counsel for the claim petitioner also
challenged the compensation that has been awarded under other
heads also. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I
do not find any reasons for interference and I find that the
amounts granted are quite reasonable and just.
10. The impugned Award is modified to the
following extent:
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in
No. claimed Awarded by appeal
Tribunal
1. Loss of ₹1,00,000/- ₹31,500/- ₹44,000/-
earnings (₹11,000/- x 4)
2025:KER:38559
2. Transport to ₹5,000/- ₹7,500/- ₹7,500/-
hospital (No modification)
3. Extra ₹20,000/- ₹10,000/- ₹10,000/-
nourishment (No modification)
4. Damage to ₹5,000/- ₹2,000/- ₹2,000/-
clothing (No modification)
5. Treatment ₹1,50,000/- 1,52,451/- 1,52,451/-
expenses (No modification)
6. Bystander's ₹20,000/- ₹4,900/- ₹4,900/-
expenses (No modification)
7. Compensation 1,50,000/- ₹40,000/- ₹40,000/-
for pain and (No modification)
sufferings
8. Compensation 1,00,000/- ₹10,000/- ₹15,000/-
for loss of
amenities and
enjoyment in
life.
9. Future ₹80,000/- Nil Nil
treatment (No modification)
expenses
10. Compensation ₹2,00,000/- Nil Nil
for disability (No modification)
Total ₹8,30,000/- ₹2,58,351/- ₹2,75,851/-
Claim is
limited to
₹8,30,000/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing
the compensation by a further amount of ₹17,500/- (total
compensation ₹2,75,851/- that is,₹2,58,351/- granted by the
2025:KER:38559
Tribunal + ₹17,500/- 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
accordance with law after making deductions, if any.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
Jms
