Kerala High Court
Beena Francis vs Anil P.Mosa on 10 October, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.14 of 2020
1
2025:KER:75352
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. 14 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 25.04.2019 IN OPMV NO.758 OF
2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
THRISSUR.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
BEENA FRANCIS,
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O.FRANCIS, RESIDING AT CHIRAMBAN HOUSE,
P.O.KOTTAPURAM, ERUMAPETTY (VIA),
THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
SRI.P.S.APPU
SRI.A.R.NIMOD
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 ANIL P.MOSA,
S/O.VARGHESE MOSA, RESIDING AT 10/448,
PANAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.VENNUR,
ELANADU VILLAGE, PAZHAYANNUR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 587.
2 BINTO,
S/O.CHACKO,
RESIDING AT POOVATHUKUNNEL HOUSE,
KARUMAMKUZHI DESOM,
P.O.ELANAD,
THRISSUR - 680 586.
M.A.C.A.No.14 of 2020
2
2025:KER:75352
3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
MICRO OFFICE, A.R.MAIL,
COURT ROAD, ALATHUR,
PALAKKAD - 678 541,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
BY ADV SHRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN
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.14 of 2020
3
2025:KER:75352
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.14 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.758/2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Thrissur (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of
compensation granted by Award dated 25/04/2019. 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
03/03/2013 at 02:15 p.m., while she was pillion riding on
motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-08/A-7148 ridden by her
husband through the Thrissur-Mannuthy road and when they
reached near Kalathode mosque, bus bearing registration No.KL-
2025:KER:75352
48-B-7227 driven by the second respondent in a rash and
negligent manner knocked her down, as a result of which she
sustained grievous injuries.
3. The first respondent-owner and the second
respondent-driver of the offending bus remained ex-parte.
4. The third respondent-insurer filed written
statement admitting the policy but denying negligence on the part
of the second respondent. The averments in the petition regarding
age, income, injuries and hospitalisation of the claim petitioner
were disputed. The compensation claimed under various heads
was contended to be exorbitant.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was
adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on the side
of the claim petitioner. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the
respondents.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found
negligence on the part of the second respondent-driver of the
2025:KER:75352
offending bus resulting in the incident and hence awarded an
amount of ₹1,14,300/- 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 is challenged by the claim petitioner-
Notional income
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim
petitioner that the notional income of ₹5,500/- fixed is on the
lower side and hence the same needs to be appropriately
enhanced. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the amount that has
been fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable and if at all the Court is
2025:KER:75352
inclined to enhance the same, the same may be as claimed in the
petition.
9.1. The claim in the petition is that she was earning
₹7,500/- per month. However, going by the dictum in
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Company Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236, the income of
even a coolie in the year 2013 is liable to be fixed at ₹9,000/-.
That being the position and the claim petitioner being a tailor, I
find that an amount of ₹9,000/- under this head would be just and
reasonable.
Pain and suffering
10. The materials on record show that the claim
petitioner sustained the following injuries-
"Lacerated wound upper eyelid, laceration on the left
side of eyes with nerve injury."
She was hospitalized for a period of 6 days. Hence an amount of
2025:KER:75352
₹20,000/- as claimed would be just and reasonable.
Percentage of permanent disability
11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
claim petitioner that in the light of Ext.A8, where the whole body
disability has been assessed as 8%, the Tribunal was not justified
in scaling it down to 3%. He also submits that in the light of the
disability noted, the claim petitioner who is a tailor has difficulty
in interacting with the customers and hence the functional
disability has to be higher than what has been fixed by the
Tribunal. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
third respondent/insurer that it is the functional disability that
needs to be assessed whereas it is the whole body disability that
has been assessed by the doctor. Moreover the doctor was not
examined to prove the contents of Ext. A8 and therefore no
interference is called for.
11.1. I have already referred to the injury sustained by
the claim petitioner. Ext. A8 disability certificate reads thus-
2025:KER:75352
Certificate
I examined Mrs. Beena, wife of Francis 35 years,
Cheeramban house, P.O. Kottappuram, East Mangadu on
31/3/2017, and verified her previous medical records. She
sustained a Road traffic accident at Kalathodu at 2.00 PM
on 3.3.13. She was admitted in Jubilee Mission Medical
College on the same day. She had a lacerated wound on her
left eye lid and another laceration involving left side of her
face. Wounds were sutured, post operatively she had
dissymmetry of face and was diagonsed to have facial nerve
injury ; which was confirmed by nerve-condition study. She
was on treatment for the same.
Now on examination she has minimal
dissymmetry of face and deviation of angle of mouth, due to
incompletely recovered facial Nerve injury.
On assessment she has 8% whole body disability
due to facial paresis.
She has a whole body disability of 8% (eight
percent)." (Emphasis supplied)
2025:KER:75352
11.2. It is true that the doctor was not examined.
However, the injury sustained by the claim petitioner is not
disputed. That being the position and taking into account the
facial paresis, I find that the function disability can be fixed as
4%.
Loss of amenities
12. An amount to ₹18,000/- was claimed. The
Tribunal awarded an amount of ₹10,000/-. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, I find that an amount of ₹18,000/- as
claimed would be just and reasonable.
Multiplier
13. It is submitted by both sides that the claim
petitioner being 31 years old, the multiplier to be applied was 16.
However, the Tribunal committed a mistake in applying the
multiplier as 17. Therefore, the impugned award shall stand
modified to the said extent also.
2025:KER:75352
14. 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 o f 30,000/- 16,500/- 27,000/-
earnings (9,000/- x 3)
2. Medical 25,000/- 32,240/- 32,240/-
expenses (No modification)
3. Bystander 4,000/- 1,400/- 1,400/-
expenses (No modification)
4. Transportation 3,000/- 1,500/- 1,500/-
expenses (No modification)
5. Extra 5,000/- 3,000/- 3,000/-
nourishment (No modification)
6. Damage to 1,500/- 1,000/- 1,000/-
clothing etc. (No modification)
7. Pain and 20,000/- 15,000/- 20,000/-
sufferings
8. Compensation 50,000/- 33,600/- 69,120/-
for continuing
or permanent (9,000/- x 12 x 16 x
4/100)
disability
9. Loss of 18,000/- 10,000/- 18,000/-
amenities in
life
10. Future 10,000/- - Nil
treatment (No modification)
2025:KER:75352
Total 1,65,500/- 1,14,240/- 1,73,260/-
claim limited rounded off
to 1,25,000/- to
1,14,300/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹58,960/- (total
compensation = ₹1,73,260/- that is, ₹1,14,300/- granted by the
Tribunal + ₹58,960/- 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 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.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
Jms
