Kerala High Court

Aboobacker Siddique vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited on 10 October, 2025

M.A.C.A.No.1013 of 2020

                                    1

                                                  2025:KER:75464
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA

  FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 18TH ASWINA, 1947

                          MACA NO. 1013 OF 2020

        AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 12.07.2017 IN OPMV NO.202 OF

2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

OTTAPPALAM.

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

             ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE
             AGED 56 YEARS,
             S/O.HASSANNAR, KULAMACHIRA HOUSE,
             VIYYAKURISSI (P.O),
             MANNARKKAD TALUK,
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN-678 593.


             BY ADVS.
             SHRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR
             SHRI.RANJIT BABU



RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.3:

             ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
             REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE,
             THALIPARAMBA, MARINA SHOPPING CENTER,
             NATIONAL HIGHWAY, THALIPARAMBA PIN-670 141.


             BY ADV SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA


       THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 10.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 M.A.C.A.No.1013 of 2020

                                        2

                                                              2025:KER:75464


                              C.S.SUDHA, J.
               ----------------------------------------------------
                         M.A.C.A.No.1013 of 2020
               ----------------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 10th day of October 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.202/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Ottapalam (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of

compensation granted by Award dated 12/07/2017. The sole

respondent herein is the third respondent/insurer 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

16/08/2015 at about 04:30 a.m., while he was travelling in goods

autorickshaw bearing registration no.KL-32A 7919 from Mankara

to Mannarkkad through Palakkad - Mannarkkad public road and

when he reached the place by name Edaikkal, lorry bearing

registration no.KL 59-J-6505 driven by the first respondent in a

2025:KER:75464

rash and negligent manner dashed against the goods autorickshaw,

as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries

3. The first respondent-driver and the second

respondent-owner of the offending lorry remained ex-parte.

4. The third respondent-insurer filed written

statement admitting the policy but denying negligence on the part

of the first respondent-driver. The averments in the petitioner

regarding age, occupation, income and nature of injuries sustained

to the claim petitioner were disputed.

5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined.

Exts.A1 to A20 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner.

No oral or documentary evidence was produced by the

respondents.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the

documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found

negligence on the part of the first respondent-driver of the

offending lorry resulting in the incident and hence awarded an

amount of ₹9,33,820/- together with interest @ 9% per annum

2025:KER:75464

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 is challenged by the claim petitioner-

Notional income

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim

petitioner that the latter, a goods autorikshaw driver was earning

₹20,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional

income at ₹6,000/-, which is quite low and hence the same needs

to be appropriately enhanced. Per contra, it is submitted by the

learned counsel for the third respondent-insurer that the amount

fixed is reasonable and if at all the Court is inclined to enhance

the same, it may be as per the dictum in Ramachandrappa v.

2025:KER:75464

Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd,

(2011) 13 SCC 236.

9.1. There are no materials to support the claim

regarding the income and hence in the light of the dictum in

Ramachandrappa (Supra), the notional income is fixed as

₹10,000/-.

Percentage of disability

10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

claim petitioner that when 70% whole body disability has been

assessed, the functional disability ought to have been taken as

100% in the light of the disabilitiess caused. Per contra, it is

submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent-insurer

that the disability fixed is reasonable and no further enhancement

is required. The relevant portion of Ext.A18 disability certificate

reads thus-

" Disability certificate.

This is to certify Aboobacker Siddique, 53 S/o Hassanar Kulamchira house, Viyyakurussi, Palakkad

2025:KER:75464 District was admitted with history of RTA on .... hospital on 08/06/2016. as per the discharge certificate, he sustained the following injuries -

          (1)             neck injury.

          (2)      Contusion                   cervico           thorasic   cord   with
          paraplegia

....................................................

On examination ...(not legible)

1. He is bed ridden. He has grade 2 power in lower limb.

2. He cannot independently do any work or sit up.

3. He has sensory loss impairment below T4 level.

He has got temporary difficulty for 1st (not legible) permanent disability for whole body is assesed at 70%. (seventy).........."

In the light of the disability caused, which includes paraplegia, I

find that the claim petitioner who was earning his livelihood as a

driver, the percentage of functional disability would be 100%.

Hence the impugned award is modified to the said extent also.

Additon to be made towards future prospects

11. As the percentage of disability is 100%, 10% of

of his income is liable to be added towards future prospects.

2025:KER:75464

12. The impugned Award is modified to the

following extent:

Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in No. claimed Awarded by appeal Tribunal (in ₹) (in ₹) (in ₹)

1. Loss of earning 3,50,000/- 72,000/- 1,20,000/-

(10,000/- x 12)

2. Transportation 30,000/- 5,000/- 5,000/-

        expenses                                        (No modification)
3.      Extra               15,000/-        5,200/-         5,200/-
        nourishment                                     (No modification)
4.      Medical and        1,10,000/-     2,07,020/-      2,07,020/-
        miscellaneous                                   (No modification)
        expenses
5.      Future medical      50,000/-       10,000/-        10,000/-
        expenses                                        (No modification)
6.     Bystander            15,000/-        5,200/-         5,200/-
       expenses                                         (No modification)
7.      Pain and           2,00,000/-      50,000/-        50,000/-
        suffering                                       (No modification)
8.      Compensation       8,00,000/-     5,54,400/-      14,52,000/-
        for continuing                                     [10,000/- +
        permanent                                       (10,000/- x 10%)
        disability                                         x 12 x 11 x
                                                             100%]
9.      Compensation       2,00,000/-        Nil              Nil
        for loss of                                     (No modification)
        earning power
10      Loss of            2,00,000/-      25,000/-         25,000/-
        enjoyment and                                   (No modification)
        amenities of
        life
        Total              19,70,000/-    9,33,820/-      18,79,420/-
                          claim limited




                                                   2025:KER:75464

                              to
                          15,00,000/-

In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the

compensation by a further amount of ₹9,45,600/- (total

compensation = ₹18,79,420/- that is, ₹9,33,820/- granted by the

Tribunal + ₹9,45,600/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate

of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization

(excluding the period of 835 days delay in filing the appeal) and

proportionate costs. The third respondent/ insurer 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.