Kerala High Court

Prakash vs Santhosh Kumar on 27 October, 2025

                                                   2025:KER:80525
MACA NO. 1179 OF 2013

                                    :-1-:

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
     MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1947
                        MACA NO. 1179 OF 2013
      [AGAINST THE AWARD DTD.15.09.2011 IN OP(MV) NO.626 OF 2009
OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM]
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

           PRAKASH
           AGED 40 YEARS
           S/O.KOCHUCHERUKKAN, PLAKKADU, CHEKKALAYAZHIKAM
           VEEDU,ADICHANALLOOR, KOLLAM


           BY ADV SHRI.SYAM J SAM

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1      SANTHOSH KUMAR
           S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY PILLAI, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, NEDUNGOLAM
           P O, KOLLAM - 691 001

    2      SAJEEV
           S/O.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, ARIKKANALAZHIKOM, KALAKKODU P
           O, KOLLAM - 691 001

    3      THE MANAGER
           NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD, KOLLAM BRANCH, KOLLAM - 691
           001


      THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                   2025:KER:80525
MACA NO. 1179 OF 2013

                                 :-2-:


                            JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV)

No.626 of 2009 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Kollam. The respondents herein were the respondents

before the tribunal.

2. The case of the appellant/claimant is that on 7-10-2008 at

4.50 pm, while he was riding a motor cycle (KL-04 M 9964)

through Paravoor-Chathannoor public road and when it reached

Vinayakar junction, a car (KL-02 AB 3921) driven by the second

respondent suddenly turned to the right side without any signal

and the rear portion of the car hit on the motor cycle of the

petitioner, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached

the tribunal claiming compensation.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and rider of the

offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the

tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement,

admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but

disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed.

PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A13 were marked. The

tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, 2025:KER:80525 MACA NO. 1179 OF 2013

:-3-:

held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of

the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of

₹2,39,700/- as compensation under different heads with interest

@ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization,

against the third respondent being the insurer and in default of

payment as above, penal interest @ 9% per annum was also

awarded. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims

enhancement under the following heads:

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the injured was a Police Constable at the time of

accident and the salary drawn by the injured was ₹11,982/-. The

tribunal has fixed ₹4,000/- which appears to be on the lower side.

The petitioner has produced EXt.A13 payslip, which shows the

monthly income of the petitioner as ₹11,982/-. Hence, the notional

income of the appellant is fixed at ₹11,980/-. The learned Counsel

for the appellant/ insurer submitted that following the judgment

of this court in Raju Sebastian v. United India Insurance 2025:KER:80525 MACA NO. 1179 OF 2013

:-4-:

Co.Ltd [(2021) 6 KLT 136], this Court held that for a Government

employee, at least 50% of the monthly salary as on the date of

accident has to be taken for awarding compensation for

permanent disability. Accordingly, following the judgment in Raju

Sebastian (supra), I deem it appropriate to take ₹5,990/- being

50% of ₹11,980/-, rounded off to ₹6000/-, as the monthly notional

income for calculating permanent disability (₹11,980 x 50%).

Extra nourishment - The learned counsel for the appellant

submits that the appellant was hospitalized for a period of twenty

six days, however, the tribunal awarded only an amount of

₹1,000/- towards extra nourishment, which is on the lower side.

Considering the afore facts, I deem it appropriate to take ₹150/-

per day for 26 days towards extra nourishment. Accordingly, he

will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹3,900/- (150 x 26)

towards extra nourishment. Thus, there will be an additional

compensation of ₹2900/- under this head.

Pain and suffering - The learned counsel for the appellant

submits that the tribunal awarded only ₹20,000/- for pain and

suffering. Considering the injuries sustained by him and the

sufferings that he had undergone, I am inclined to grant a total

amount of ₹30,000/- to the appellant as total compensation 2025:KER:80525 MACA NO. 1179 OF 2013

:-5-:

towards pain and suffering. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to

get an additional amount of ₹10,000/- as compensation towards

pain and suffering.

Loss of amenities - The tribunal awarded only an amount

of ₹19,200/-, which, according to the appellant, is on the lower

side. Considering the injuries sustained by the appellant

i.e.,Lacerated wound over the left knee, Multiple abrasions over

face, fracture of the lateral wall of left orbit, fracture of left

maxilla, byfrontal fractures and basifrontal contusion, and loss of

enjoyment in life I deem it appropriate to award a total

compensation of ₹30,000/- towards loss of amenities. Thus, the

appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of ₹10,800/-

towards loss of amenities.

Permanent disability :- The learned counsel for the

appellant submitted that the tribunal in paragraph 19 has noted

that the appellant has produced the disability certificate issued

from the Ananthapuri Hospital wherein his visual disability as

20%. However, the whole body disability was not assessed by the

Doctor nor the Doctor who issued the certificate was examined.

However, the tribunal has taken disability as 8% which appears to

be on the lower side.

2025:KER:80525 MACA NO. 1179 OF 2013

:-6-:

The appellant testified that the vision difficulty in his eye

significantly impairs his performance as a police constable.

Considering his occupation as a Police Constable, I find that the

percentage of disability in his eye contributes to his overall whole

body disability. Accordingly, I find it appropriate to re-fix the

percentage of disability at 20%. The insurer has not filed any

appeal challenging the award passed.

Since, the permanent disability of the appellant has been re-

fixed at 20%, following the judgment of the Apex Court in

National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT

662(SC)] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation

[2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the compensation payable under the head

permanent disability is re-calculated by adding the modified

income and multiplier thus: ₹2,16,000/- (6000 x 12 x 15 x 20/100).

The tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹57,600/- under the afore

head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹1,58,400/-

under the head permanent disability.

6. Though the appellant claimed enhancement of

compensation under other heads as well, on a perusal of the

records available and the impugned award, I am not inclined to

interfere with the same, since it appears to be just and 2025:KER:80525 MACA NO. 1179 OF 2013

:-7-:

reasonable. SInce the appeal is of the year 2013, I find it

appropriate to fix the interest @ 7% per annum on the enhanced

amount.

7. On a perusal of the impugned award, it is seen that the

tribunal awarded penal interest at the rate of 9%, which is not

legally sustainable in view of the judgment of the apex court in

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur [2004 (2)

SCC 370]. Accordingly, the direction of the tribunal awarding

penal interest @ 9% per annum is hereby set aside.

8. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as

follows:

Sl.

No.        Head of Claim     Amount        Modified      Total
                             awarded      in appeal   compensation
                              by the         (in ₹)        (in ₹)
                             tribunal
                               (in ₹)
(a)   Loss of Earning            nil          nil          nil
(b)   Partial loss of           nil           nil          nil
      Earning
(c)   Transport to the         3000           nil        3,000
      hospital
(d)   Extra                    1000           2900       3,900
      nourishment
(e)   Damage to                 nil           nil          nil
      clothing and
      articles
                                                       2025:KER:80525
MACA NO. 1179 OF 2013

                                   :-8-:

(f)   Others-               3900             nil         3,900
      Bystander
      expenses
(g)   Medical and          135000            nil        1,35,000
      miscellaneous
      expenses
(h)   Pain and             20,000          10,000       30,000
      Suffering
(i)   Permanent            57,600          1,58,400     2,16,000
      Disability
      Loss of amenities    19,200          10,800       30,000
(j)   in life

      TOTAL                2,39,700        1,82,100     4,21,800
                          rounded as
                           2,40,000

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant

is awarded an additional compensation of ₹1,82,100/- (Rupees

one lakh eighty two thousand and one hundred only) over and

above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @

7% per annum from the date of petition till realization and

proportionate costs. The respondent insurer shall deposit the said

amount together with interest and costs within a period of two

months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

judgment. The direction of the tribunal awarding penal interest @

9% per annum is hereby set aside. The appellant shall furnish

copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and bank details before

the respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to

enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered 2025:KER:80525 MACA NO. 1179 OF 2013

:-9-:

above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be

open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount

before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire

amount shall be disbursed to the appellant at the earliest in

accordance with law. However, it is made clear that the enhanced

compensation will not carry interest for the period of delay of

1094 days (537 + 557) in filing the appeal.