Kerala High Court
Padmavathy.P vs Murshid Ali on 8 September, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.984 of 2020
1
2025:KER:66489
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. 984 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 20.11.2019 IN OPMV NO.637 OF
2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
OTTAPPALAM.
APPELLANTS:
1 PADMAVATHY.P
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O.LATE KRISHNAN,
2/369, VEETIL KULAKKUNNATH HOUSE,
VALLOOR, AMAYUR-679 303, PALAKKAD DIST.
2 VISHNU
AGED 19 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR(LATE),VEETIL KULAKKUNNATH
HOUSE, VALLOOR, AMAYUR-679 303,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.R.NIMOD
SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE
RESPONDENTS:
1 MURSHID ALI
AGED 20 YEARS,
S/O.MUHAMMADALI P., PARAMBIL HOUSE,
PALUR PULAMANTHOLE(P.O),
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
(RIDER OF KL-45/C 2286 MOTOR CYCLE).
M.A.C.A.No.984 of 2020
2
2025:KER:66489
2 SANOOP.S.,
S/O.SUNIL KUMAR,
SANKARAMTHODIYIL HOUSE, PULAMANTHOLE (P.O)
MALAPPURAM DIST PIN-679 323
(RC OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE).
3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
PERINTHALMANNA BRANCH, 1ST FLOOR, V.V.COMPLEX,
CALICUT ROAD, PIN-679 322,
PERINTHALMANNA, REP BY BRANCH MANAGER,
POLICY NO.76020131160200013771,
VALID FROM 7/9/2016 TO 6/9/2017.
4 PRAJEESH
S/O.VINODAN, MATHRAMKOTT HOUSE, KARIKKAD,
KADAVALLUR G.P., WADAKKANCHERRY,
THRISSUR-680 519 (INSURED OF THE VEHICLE).
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA
SRI.JOSEPH KURIAN VALLAMATTAM
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.984 of 2020
3
2025:KER:66489
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.984 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 petitioners in
O.P.(MV) No.637/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Ottapalam (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of
compensation granted by Award dated 20/11/2019. 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. The claim petitioners are the wife and son of
deceased Krishnan. According to the claim petitioners, on
18/01/2017 at about 12:30 p.m., while the deceased was walking
through Koppam-Pattambi public road and when he reached the
place by name Amayur centre, motorcycle bearing registration
no.KL-45-C-2286 ridden by the first respondent in a rash and
2025:KER:66489
negligent manner and in excessive speed knocked him down, as a
result of which he sustained grievous injuries to which he
succumbed.
3. The first respondent-rider and the second
respondent-owner jointly filed written statement denying
negligence on the part of the former.
4. The third respondent-insurer filed written
statement admitting the policy but denying negligence on the part
of the first respondent. The compensation claimed under various
heads was contended to be exorbitant.
5. The fourth respondent-insured of the offending
vehicle remained ex-parte.
6. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and
Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners.
No oral evidence was adduced by the respondents. Ext.B1 was
marked on the side of the respondent.
7. The Tribunal on consideration of the
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found
2025:KER:66489
negligence on the part of the first respondent-rider of the
offending motorcycle resulting in the incident and hence awarded
an amount of ₹5,76,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with
proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim
petitioners have come up in appeal.
8. 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.
9. Heard both sides.
10. The award of compensation by the Tribunal
under the following heads is challenged by the claim petitioners-
Notional income
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim
petitioners that the deceased, a Security Guard, Bank of Baroda,
was earning ₹12,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed
the notional income at ₹8,000/-, which is quite low and hence the
same needs to be enhanced in the light of the testimony of PW1,
2025:KER:66489
whose testimony stands unchallenged. Per contra, it is submitted
by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that in the
absence of evidence, the amount that has been fixed by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable and that it does not call for any
interference.
10.1. To prove the claim that the deceased was
earning ₹12,000/-, the second claim petitioner offered himself as
a witness and he was examined before the Tribunal as PW1. I was
taken through the proof affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination
as well as the cross examination. The stand of the second claim
petitioner that the deceased was earning an amount of ₹12,000/-
is not seen discredited. Therefore, the notional income of the
deceased can be fixed at ₹12,000/- per month.
Compensation for pain and suffering
11. An amount of ₹2,00,000/- was claimed. No
amount is seen awarded by the Tribunal. It is pointed out by the
learned counsel for the claim petitioners that though the accident
took place on 18/01/2017, the deceased died after 10 days, that is,
2025:KER:66489
on 27/01/2017 and so an appropriate amount ought to have been
granted by the Tribunal. As no amount has been granted,
appropriate amount may be granted under this head.
11.1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find
that an amount of ₹40,000/- under this head would be just and
reasonable.
12. 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. Transport to 10,000/- 5,000/- 5,000/-
hospital (No modification)
2. Damage to 5,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/-
clothing and (No modification)
articles
3. Extra 0 2,000/- 2,000/-
nourishment (No modification)
4. Funeral 50,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/-
expenses (No modification)
5. Compensation for 2,00,000/- 0 40,000/-
pain and
sufferings
6. Compensation for 15,00,000/- 4,48,000/- 6,72,000/-
loss of (12,000/- x 12 x 7 x
dependency 2/3)
7. Compensation 2,00,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/-
(No modification)
2025:KER:66489
for loss of estate
8. Compensation 2,00,000/- 40,000/- 40,000/-
for loss of (No modification)
consortium
9. Compensation 2,00,000/- 50,000/- 50,000/-
for loss of love (No modification)
and affection
for loss of (No modification)
expectancy of
life
Total 25,65,000/- 5,76,000/- 8,40,000/-
Limited to 20,00,000/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹2,64,000/- (total
compensation = ₹8,40,000/- that is, ₹5,76,000/- granted by the
Tribunal + ₹2,64,000/- 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 petitioners at the earliest in accordance
with law after making deductions, if any. The liberty that has
2025:KER:66489
been granted by the Tribunal to the third respondent/insurer to
recover the amount from the second respondent-owner is
confirmed.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
Jms
