Kerala High Court
Jayan vs Varghese on 8 September, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.1122 of 2020
1
2025:KER:66645
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 17TH BHADRA, 1947
MACA NO. 1122 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 16/03/2019 IN OPMV NO.2322 OF
2010 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
THRISSUR.
APPELLANT:
JAYAN
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. KESAVAN, KOTTAYIL PANNIYETH HOUSE,
THENGALLOOR P. O., AVANOOR, THRISSUR,
THRISSUR - 680 596.
BY ADVS. SRI.A.R.NIMOD
SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE
RESPONDENTS:
1 VARGHESE
S/O. KUNJU VARIED, KUPPARI HOUSE,
P. O. VETTUKAD, TRICHUR - 680 014.
2 ANTONY
S/O. JOHN, KOONAMMAKAL HOUSE,
CHENPANKANDAM, P. O. PUTHOOR,
TRICHUR - 680 014.
3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
PERINCHERY BUILDING, ROUND NORTH,
THRISSUR - 680 001,
REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER.
BY ADV SHRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 08.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.1122 of 2020
2
2025:KER:66645
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.1122 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of September 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.2322/2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Thrissur (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the
amount of compensation granted by Award dated 16/03/2019.
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
18/02/2010 at 05:30 p.m., while he was walking through the side
of Thrissur - Shornur public road and when he reached near
Tiroor-Konchery junction, motorcycle bearing registration
no.KL-8-T-4658 ridden by the second respondent in a rash and
2025:KER:66645
negligent manner knocked him down, as a result of which he
sustained grievous injuries.
3. The first respondent-owner and the second
respondent-rider of the offending motorcycle filed joint written
statement denying negligence on the part of the latter.
4. The third respondent-insurer filed written
statement admitting the policy, but denying liability. The
averments in the petition regarding negligence on the part of the
second respondent, injuries, hospitalization, age and income were
denied. 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 A9 were marked on the side of
the claim petitioner. Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of
the respondents and Ext.X1 was also marked.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found
negligence on the part of the second respondent-rider of the
2025:KER:66645
offending motorcycle resulting in the incident and hence awarded
an amount of ₹5,29,640/- 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 ₹5,000/- fixed by the
Tribunal is low in the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa
v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company
Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236. Per contra, it is submitted by the
learned counsel for the third respondent-insurer that the amount
2025:KER:66645
as claimed in the petition has been granted by the Tribunal and
therefore there is no infirmity committed by the Tribunal calling
for an interference by this Court.
9.1. It is true that the allegation in the claim petition
is that he was earning an amount of ₹5,000/- per month. The fact
that the claim petitioner is a tile worker is not seen disputed.
Therefore, taking into account the dictum in Ramachandrappa
(Supra), the notional income of the claim petitioner can be fixed
as ₹7,500/- per month.
Multiplier
10. It is submitted by both sides that the Tribunal
has wrongly applied 16 as the multiplier whereas the correct
multiplier to be applied is 15. Hence, the impugned Award will
be modified to the said extent and the multiplier to be applied will
be 15.
Future prospects
11. Going by Ext.X1 certificate, the percentage of
disability is 37%, which has been accepted by the Tribunal and
2025:KER:66645
the functional disability has been fixed as 37%. The materials on
record show that he has completely lost sight of his right eye.
That being the position and taking into account the percentage of
disability, 40% of his established income is liable to be added
towards future prospects.
Pain and sufferings
12. The materials on record show that the claim
petitioner sustained the following injuries-
" 1. Lacerated wound 5 x 0.5 cm bone deep right eye.
2. Right black eye,
3. Pulpabble fracture right zygoma,
4. Fracture maxilla bone,
5. Complete loss of right eye sight."
Therefore, an amount of ₹50,000/- as claimed would be just and
reasonable under this head.
Loss of amenities
13. Though no amount was claimed under this head,
the Tribunal granted an amount of ₹30,000/-. However, it is
pointed out that in the light of the claim petitioner losing sight of
2025:KER:66645
one eye, the amount awarded is low and the same needs to be
appropriately enhanced. On the other hand, it is submitted by the
learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that despite no
claim being made under this head, the Tribunal has granted an
amount of 30,000/- which is a reasonable amount and that it does
not call for any interference.
13.1. Going by the materials on record, the claim
petitioner, a 36-year-old young man lost sight of his right eye in
the accident. Therefore, taking into account the facts and
circumstances of the case, I find that an amount per ₹50,000/-
under this head would be just and reasonable.
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 of earning 60,000/- 50,000/- 75,000/-
(7,500/- x 10)
2. Medical 10,000/- 7,420/- 7,420/-
expenses (No modification)
3. Bystander - 2,000/- 2,000/-
2025:KER:66645
expenses (No modification)
4. Transportation 10,000/- 2,000/- 2,000/-
expenses (No modification)
5. Extra 10,000/- 1,500/- 1,500/-
nourishment (No modification)
6. Damage to 10,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/-
clothing etc. (No modification)
7. Pain and 50,000/- 40,000/- 50,000/-
suffering
8. Compensation 5,00,000/- 3,90,720/- 6,99,300/-
for continuing or (7,500/- + (7,500/-
permanent x 40%) x 12 x 15 x
37/100)
disability
9. Compensation 2,00,000/- - Nil
for the loss of (No modification)
earning power
10. Loss of - 30,000/- 50,000/-
amenities and
enjoyment of
life
11. Compensation 1,50,000/- - Nil
for disability of (No modification)
the future
prosperity life
12. Personal - 5,000/- 5,000/-
assistance (No modification)
Total 10,00,000/- 5,29,640/- 8,93,220/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹3,63,580/- (total
compensation = ₹8,93,220/- that is, ₹5,29,640/- granted by the
Tribunal + ₹3,63,580/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate
2025:KER:66645
of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization
(excluding the period of 242 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.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
Jms
