Kerala High Court

Amal T Venu vs Shiju on 8 September, 2025

                                                        2025:KER:67227




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

         MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 17TH BHADRA, 1947

                           MACA NO. 1607 OF 2016

         AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 06.11.2015 IN OPMV NO.715 OF 2013 OF

MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA


APPELLANT/ PETITIONER :

             AMAL T VENU
             AGED 25, S/O.VENU, THADATHIL HOUSE, AYAKKADU KARA,
             THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE.



             BY ADVS.
             SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM)
             SRI.PRASANTH M.P




RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS :

     1       SHIJU
             S/O.VELAPPAN, KURIYAPPURAM HOUSE,
             IRAMALLOOR KARA, IRAMALLOOR VILLAGE,
             NELLIKUZHY PO. PIN 686 691.

     2       HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
             6TH FLOOR, LEELA BUSINESS PARK,
             ANDHERI KURLA ROAD,
             ANDHERI E,MUMBAI-400 059.
 MACA NO.1607 OF 2016

                                                      2025:KER:67227

                                 :2:




           BY ADVS
                 K.B.RAMANAND
                 DHANYA BABU M B - FOR SC


      THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

08.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA NO.1607 OF 2016

                                                   2025:KER:67227

                                :3:




                           JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 8th day of September, 2025)

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.715 of

2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

Muvattupuzha. The respondents herein are the respondents before

the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimant is that on 27.07.2013 at about

3.30 p.m., while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.

No.KL-44/B 9529, an autorickshaw bearing Reg. No.KL-6/D 9782

driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit

against the motorcycle, whereby the claimant sustained serious

injuries. The claimant approached the Tribunal claiming a total

compensation of ₹3,50,000/-.

3. The first respondent, driver of the offending vehicle,

remained ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent

Insurance Company filed a written statement, admitting the

insurance policy, but challenging the quantum of compensation

claimed. Before the tribunal PW1 was examined and Exts. A1 to MACA NO.1607 OF 2016

2025:KER:67227

A10 were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and

materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of

the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a

total compensation of ₹2,27,100/- under different heads with

interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization,

against the 2nd respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the

quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant

has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the

learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company.

5. The appellant has filed this appeal seeking

enhancement of compensation under the following head:-

Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the appellant was working as a Supervisor in a

Construction Company and though an amount of ₹15,000/- was

claimed as the monthly income of the appellant, the tribunal had

taken only an amount of ₹5,500/-. The learned counsel further

submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa MACA NO.1607 OF 2016

2025:KER:67227

v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011

(13) SCC 236], the monthly income ought to have been taken at

₹9,000/-, since the accident is of the year 2013. It was also

submitted that, as per the First Information Statement (FIS), the

claimant had stated that he was working as a supervisor in a

construction firm. Considering the afore facts, I find it appropriate

to re-fix the monthly income at ₹10,000/-

Loss of earnings:- The learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the Tribunal has taken only a period of six months

for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings.

Following are the injuries sustained by the appellant due to the

accident:

i) Fracture patella.

ii) Avulsion fracture base of terminal phalanx right ring finger with mallet finger deformity.

iii) Extensive laceration dorsal aspect of right foot with segmental loss of extensor tendons and loss of skin.

iv)Multiple lacerated wounds posterior aspect of right leg over the tendo achillis.

v) Multiple abrasion right knee, right big toe, forehead and upper lip.

vi) Lacerated wound just above the right eyebrow.

MACA NO.1607 OF 2016

2025:KER:67227

Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant,

I find that a period of seven months can be taken for awarding

compensation under the said head. Since the notional monthly

income has been re-fixed at ₹10,000/-, the total compensation

payable under the said head would be ₹70,000/- (10,000 x 7). The

Tribunal had granted an amount of ₹33,000/- under the said head.

Thus there will be an additional amount of ₹37,000/- under the

afore head.

Pain and suffering :- The learned Counsel for the appellant

submitted that though an amount of ₹1,00,000/- was claimed by

the appellant, the Tribunal has awarded only an amount of

₹35,000/- under the head pain and sufferings. Considering the

nature of the injuries sustained, I find that the total amount

payable under the said head can be fixed at ₹40,000/-. Since the

Tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹35,000/-, an additional

amount of ₹5,000/- can be payable under the afore head.

Permanent disability:- The learned Counsel for the appellant

submitted that for awarding compensation under the head MACA NO.1607 OF 2016

2025:KER:67227

permanent disability, the multiplier adopted by the tribunal was 17

instead of 18. Following the apex court judgment in Sarla Verma

v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], I find that

18 is the correct multiplier to be adopted since the injured was

aged 22 years at the time of accident. Since the appellant's monthly

income is re-fixed at ₹10,000/-, following the judgments in

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT

662(SC)] and Sarla Verma (supra), the compensation under the

head of permanent disability is recalculated as thus: (10,000 x 12 x

18 x 5/100) ₹1,08,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of

₹56,100/- under the afore head. Hence, the appellant is entitled for

an additional amount of ₹51,900/- under the afore head.

Bystander expenses:- The learned counsel for the appellant

submits that the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹6,000/-

towards bystander's expenses which is on the lower side.

Considering the fact that the accident was in the year 2013 and the

appellant had undergone 30 days inpatient treatment due to the

accident, I deem it appropriate to award compensation towards MACA NO.1607 OF 2016

2025:KER:67227

bystander's expenses @ ₹300/- per day. Thus, he will be entitled to

get a total compensation of ₹9,000/- (300 x 30) towards bystander

expenses. Since the tribunal already awarded an amount of

₹6,000/-, there will be an additional compensation of ₹3,000/-

under the afore head.

Extra nourishment:- The learned Counsel for the appellant

submitted that though an amount of ₹5,000/- was claimed, the

tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹3,750/- for extra

nourishment. Considering the period of hospitalization, I am

inclined to award a consolidated amount of ₹5,000/- under the

head extra nourishment. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for an

additional amount of ₹1,250/- under the afore head.

Loss of amenities :- Though the appellant claimed an

amount ₹50,000/- under the head loss of amenities, the tribunal

awarded only an amount of ₹30,000/-, which according to the

appellant, is on the lower side. Considering the injuries sustained

by the appellant, I deem it appropriate to award a total

compensation of ₹40,000/- towards loss of amenities. Thus, the MACA NO.1607 OF 2016

2025:KER:67227

appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of ₹10,000/-

towards loss of amenities.

6. Though the appellant claimed enhancement of

compensation under the other heads, on a perusal of the records

available, I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal under other heads since it appears to be

just and reasonable. Since the appeal is of the year 2016, I find it

appropriate to fix the interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced

amount.

7. Thus, the impugned award of the Tribunal is modified as

follows:-

Sl.

No    Head of Claim    Amount     Amount     Modified in      Total
                       claimed    awarded      appeal      compensation
                                   by the
                                  Tribunal
1     Loss of          1,80,000    33,000      37,000         70,000
      earnings
2     Pain and         1,00,000   35,000       5,000          40,000
      sufferings
3     Loss of          50,000     30,000       10,000         40,000
      amenities
4     Medical                     61,669        Not           61,669
      treatment                               modified
      charges          1,25,000
 MACA NO.1607 OF 2016

                                                      2025:KER:67227




5   Bystander                       6,000     3,000          9,000
    expenses
6   Extra               5,000       3,750     1,250          5,000
    nourishment
7   Transportation      6,000       1,500      Not           1,500
    charges                                  modified
8   Compensation
    for permanent      2,00,000     56,100    51,900        1,08,000
    disability
    TOTAL            6,66,000     2,27,019   1,08,150       3,35,169
                      limited
                         to
                     3,50,000

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant is

awarded an additional compensation of ₹1,08,150/- (Rupees One

lakh eight thousand one hundred and fifty only) over and above the

compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 7.5% per

annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate

costs. The respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount

together with interest and costs within a period of two months from

the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The

appellant shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and

bank details before the respondent insurer within a period of one

month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit

as ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it MACA NO.1607 OF 2016

2025:KER:67227

shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said

amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the

entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellant at the earliest in

accordance with law.