Kerala High Court
A.Prabhakaran vs Praveen Kumar on 10 October, 2025
2025:KER:76529
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 18TH ASWINA, 1947
MACA NO. 1726 OF 2019
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 28.07.2016 IN OPMV NO.1392 OF 2006 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL & SPECIAL COURT FOR E.C. ACT CASES, THRISSUR
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:
1 A.PRABHAKARAN
AGED 77 YEARS
S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, SYAM NIVAS, KARALAM,
TRICHUR, PIN-680 711.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS
SHRI.K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 PRAVEEN KUMAR
S/O. RAMAN, ARIMBULLY HOUSE, KARALAM, TRICHUR-680 711
2 SYAMPRAKASH,
SYAM NIVAS, KARALAM, KARALAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
TRICHUR-680 711
3 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
TRICHUR-680 001
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD
SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON
10.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:76529
M.A.C.A. No.1726 of 2019
-2-
BASANT BALAJI, J.
==========================
M.A.C.A. No.1726 of 2019
==========================
Dated, this the 10th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
The appellant was a claimant in O.P.(M.V.) No.1392 of 2006 on
the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The claim was
filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the injuries
sustained by him in a motor accident.
2. On 01.09.2003, at 07.45 p.m., the appellant, pillion rider in
a motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-8M-5659 owing to the
negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, fell down and
sustained injuries. The 1st respondent was the owner, the 2nd respondent
was the driver and the 3rd respondent was the insurer of the offending
vehicle. He claimed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-.
3. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent
filed a written statement denying the averments in the application. The
2025:KER:76529
3rd respondent, the insurer, filed a written statement and admitted that
the vehicle was insured at the time of the accident, but contended that
the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of 2nd
respondent. They also denied the injuries, hospitalization, age, and
income of the applicant.
4. The Tribunal, placing reliance on Exts.A1 to A9, entered
into a finding that the accident happened due to the negligence of the
2nd respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.91,850/- with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till
realization. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded on various heads,
this appeal is filed.
5. The counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was
aged 63 years at the time of the accident. Due to the accident and the
injuries sustained, he was admitted to the hospital on 01.09.2003. He
was discharged on 06.09.2023 and was again admitted to the same
hospital on 11.09.2003 and got discharged on 17.09.2003. Due to the
2025:KER:76529
injury sustained, he totally lost his vision in the left eye. Ext.A8 is the
certificate issued by one Dr.Rani Menon, Eye Surgeon, who stated that
the appellant had met with a road accident with penetrating injury to
the left eye, following which the vision of the left eye was completely
lost, and he is totally blind in the left eye. The discharge certificate was
not proved by the Doctor by examining him before the Tribunal. The
Tribunal, relying on Exts.A2, A6, A7, and A8, awarded a consolidated
sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities for the injury to the eye.
The counsel submits that the Tribunal failed to award compensation for
permanent disability for the loss of vision. Taking into consideration the
Schedule attached to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, in
Schedule 1, Part-II, the percentage of loss of earning capacity for loss of
vision of one eye without complication or disfigurement of the eyeball,
the other being normal, is 30%. Moreover, the Tribunal failed to take
note of the fact that he was a real estate businessman earning a sum of
Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal fixed notional income as
2025:KER:76529
Rs.3,500/- and awarded loss of earnings for only four months. The
counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa
v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC
236], wherein the income of Rs.4,000/- was taken as monthly income.
Since the appellant was aged 63 years at the time of the accident, the
proper multiplier is 7. Therefore, taking into consideration the Schedule
attached to the Workmen's Compensation Act in respect of the loss of
vision as 30% and income as Rs.4,000/-, compensation for permanent
disability can be reworked as Rs.1,00,800/- (Rs.4,000 x 12 x 7 x
30/100).
6. As mentioned earlier, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of
Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities. Even if compensation for loss of
earning capacity is awarded, loss of amenities is a separate head whereby
a person who has disability due to an accident will lose some of the
amenities that a normal person would have enjoyed. Therefore,
compensation has to be awarded separately under the head of loss of
2025:KER:76529
amenities. The loss of vision in one eye will definitely adversely affect
his future life. Therefore, for loss of vision on one eye, the award of
Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities is not on the higher side.
Therefore, sustaining the amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded towards loss
of amenities, Rs.1,00,800/- is awarded under the head of loss of
permanent disability.
7. Accordingly, the following enhancement is made to the
award passed by the Tribunal.
Sl Head of Claim Amount awarded Amount enhanced
No. by the Tribunal in appeal (Rs.)
(Rs.)
1. Loss of permanent - 1,00,800/-
disability
Total - 1,00,800/-
Amount enhanced - Rs.1,00,800/-
8. The appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is entitled to the
enhanced compensation of Rs.1,00,800/- (Rupees One lakh eight
hundred only) over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal,
with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the petition
2025:KER:76529
till realization. It is also made clear that the appellant would not be
entitled to interest for the period of delay of 72 days in filing the appeal,
as per the order of this Court dated 15.12.2021, on enhanced
compensation.
9. All other findings entered by the Tribunal stand confirmed.
The Insurance Company shall pay interest for the amounts awarded by
the Tribunal at the rate directed in the impugned award and for the
enhanced amounts at the rate of 9% from the date of the petition. If any
amounts have already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. The
claimant shall produce the details of the bank account before the
Insurance Company/Tribunal within one month from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and the amount shall be
transferred to the bank account directly through NEFT/RTGS mode
within a period of one month thereafter. If the bank account is not given
within the time stipulated, it is made clear that no interest shall run on
the enhanced amount after the period stipulated by this court. However,
2025:KER:76529
if the insurance company fails to deposit the amount as directed, interest
on the enhanced amount shall also run at the rate ordered by the
Tribunal from the date of the petition.
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI
JUDGE
SKP
