Kerala High Court

Mohandas vs Sreedharan Nair on 14 October, 2025

                                                      2025:KER:76471
MACA No.1178/2013
                                 ..1..

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

     TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 22ND ASWINA, 1947

                        MACA NO. 1178 OF 2013

   OPMV NO.924 OF 2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

            MOHANDAS, AGED 49 YEARS
            S/O.K.N.RAVEENDRAN, MINI BHAVAN, THAZHAM, CHATHANNOOR ,
            KOLLAM


            BY ADV SHRI.SYAM J SAM


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

     1      SREEDHARAN NAIR
            S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, MADHAVAN VILASAM, THRIKKOVILVATTOM,
            MUKHATHALA, KOLLAM

     2      JAYESH, S/O.SASI, KOTTOR PADINJATTATHIL VEEDU,
            ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM

     3      THE MANAGER
            NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD,KOLLAM BRANCH, KOLLAM DIST


            BY ADV SHRI.A.R.GEORGE


     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 14.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                 2025:KER:76471
MACA No.1178/2013
                                       ..2..




                                 JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.924 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

30.09.2008, while he was pillion riding on a motorcycle bearing

Reg.No.KL-02/AB 7841, an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-2/G 9460

driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the

motorcycle, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the

tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹5,00,000/-.

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

the offending vehicle respectively, did not appear before the tribunal.

The 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

A14 were marked. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. The

tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held

that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver 2025:KER:76471

..3..

of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹1,93,000/- 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 within three months, on failure of which, penal

interest was 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:

5.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the

appellant submits that the appellant was a journalist, however, the

tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally at ₹4,000/-, which is on

the lower side. Even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v.

Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.

[(2011) 13 SCC 236], the monthly income of the appellant ought to have

been fixed at ₹6,500/- for an accident that occurred in the year 2008.

Considering the fact that the appellant was a journalist and in order to

award a just and reasonable compensation, I deem it appropriate to

refix the monthly income of the appellant at ₹6,500/- following the 2025:KER:76471

..4..

judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra).

5.2. Loss of earnings - The learned counsel for the

appellant submits that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the

appellant could not go to work for almost six months, however, the

tribunal has taken only a period of four months for awarding

compensation towards loss of earnings, amounting to ₹16,000/-. The

claimant sustained serious injuries including Type IV fracture

dislocation of right hip and fracture of posterior wall of acetabulum.

Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the age of the

appellant, I am of the opinion that five months can be taken for

awarding compensation for loss of earnings. Accordingly, the appellant

will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹32,500/- (6500 x 5) under

this head. Thus, there will be an additional compensation of ₹16,500/-

towards loss of earnings.

5.3. Pain and suffering - The learned counsel for the

appellant submits that the tribunal awarded only ₹20,000/- towards pain

and suffering, which is on the lower side. Considering the injuries

sustained by him and the sufferings that he had undergone, I am

inclined to grant an amount of ₹30,000/- to the appellant as total

compensation towards pain and suffering. Thus, the appellant will be 2025:KER:76471

..5..

entitled to get an additional amount of ₹10,000/- as compensation under

this head.

5.4. Loss of amenities/reduction in earning capacity -

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal has not

awarded compensation towards loss of amenities. On a perusal of the

impugned award, it is seen that the tribunal awarded ₹25,200/- for

loss/reduction in earning capacity. It is also seen that the tribunal

awarded an amount of ₹1,00,800/- towards permanent disability.

Therefore, I deem it appropriate to adjust the compensation of ₹25,200/-

awarded by the tribunal under the head, 'reduction in earning capacity',

towards loss of amenities. Accordingly, the compensation of ₹25,200/-

awarded towards reduction in earning capacity is deleted, adjusting the

same towards loss of amenities.

5.5. Permanent disability - Since the monthly income of

the appellant is refixed at ₹6,500/-, compensation towards permanent

disability has to be recalculated. Accordingly, following the judgments

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 appellant will be entitled to

get a total compensation of ₹1,63,800/- (6500 x 12 x 14 x 15%) towards 2025:KER:76471

..6..

permanent disability. Hence, there will be an additional amount of

₹63,000/- under the head of permanent disability.

5.6. Bystander expenses - The learned counsel for the

appellant submits that the appellant was awarded only ₹100/- per day

for eight days towards bystander's expenses, which is on the lower side.

Considering the fact that the accident was in the year 2008, I deem it

appropriate to award ₹150/- per day towards bystander's expenses.

Accordingly, he will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹1,200/-

(150 x 8) towards bystander expenses. Thus, there will be an additional

compensation of ₹400/- under this head.

5.7. Extra nourishment - The learned counsel for the

appellant submits that the appellant was hospitalized for a period of

eight days, however, the tribunal awarded only an amount of ₹1,000/-

towards extra nourishment, which is on the lower side. Considering the

fact that the accident was in the year 2008, I deem it appropriate to

award a total compensation of ₹1,200/- towards extra nourishment.

Accordingly, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional

compensation of ₹200/- under this head.

5.8. Damage to clothing - It is seen that the tribunal

awarded no compensation towards damage to clothing. Thus, the 2025:KER:76471

..7..

appellant is awarded a compensation of ₹500/- under this head.

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 reasonable.

7. It is seen that as per order dated 20.12.2021, the

appellant was disentitled for interest on the enhanced compensation for

a period of delay of 470 days in filing the appeal. Further, on

06.07.2022, it was ordered that the appellant will not be entitled for

interest from 06.07.2022 till the award is passed. Thereafter, on

11.11.2022, the appeal was dismissed for default. Subsequently, an MJC

was filed with a delay of 620 days, which was condoned disentitling the

appellant for interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of

620 days of delay in filing the MJC. Thus, it is made clear that the

appellant will not be entitled to get interest on the enhanced

compensation for the periods of 470 days of delay in filing the appeal,

from 06.07.2022 to 11.11.2022 (the date of dismissing the appeal for

default), and 620 days of delay in filing the MJC.

8. Since the appeal is of the year 2013, I fix the interest

on the enhanced compensation @ 7% per annum from the date of the 2025:KER:76471

..8..

claim petition till realization.

9. 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%

is hereby set aside.

10. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified

as follows:

Sl.

 No.     Head of Claim       Amount        Amount        Modified       Total
                             claimed       awarded      in appeal    compensation
                               (in ₹)       by the         (in ₹)       (in ₹)
                                           tribunal
                                             (in ₹)
 1.    Loss of earnings       50000         16000        16500          32500
 2.    Medical and           129000         26000          -            26000
       miscellaneous
       expenses
 3.    Future treatment            -             -         -               -
 4.    Bystander                   -            800       400            1200
       expenses
 5.    Transportation          5000             3000        -            3000
       expenses
 6.    Extra nourishment      25000             1000      200            1200

       and articles
 8.    Pain and suffering          -         20000       10000           30000
 9.    Permanent                   -        100800       63000          163800
       disability
 10.   Loss/reduction of           -            25200    -25200         deleted
                                                              2025:KER:76471

                                      ..9..

        earning capacity
 11.    Loss of amenities    290000           -     25200           25200
        Total                500000      192800     90600        283400
                                         rounded
                                          off to
                                         193000