Kerala High Court
Ajay Dev.C.U vs The Branch Manager on 8 September, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.981 of 2020
1
2025:KER:66588
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. 981 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 11.11.2019 IN OPMV NO.89 OF
2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
PERUMBAVOOR.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
AJAY DEV.C.U
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN,
RESIDING AT CHENGANARICKAL HOUSE,
ASAMANNOR P.O, POOMALA, ODACKALI-683 549
BY ADV SMT.ANEY PAUL
RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD,
SECOND FLOOR, MUNICIPAL BUILDING,
A.M. ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR-683 542
BY ADV SHRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
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.981 of 2020
2
2025:KER:66588
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.981 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.89/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Perumbavoor (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount
of compensation granted by Award dated 11/11/2019. The
respondent herein is the third respondent 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
23/11/2016 at about 10:15 a.m., while he was riding motorcycle
bearing registration no.KL-40-L-112 through Malayattoor -
Kuruppampady road at Mudakkuzha, mini tipper lorry bearing
registration no.KL-25/C-5987 driven by the second respondent in
a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction knocked
2025:KER:66588
him down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries.
3. The first respondent-owner and the second
respondent-driver of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte.
4. The third respondent-insurer filed written
statement admitting the policy but denying negligence on the part
of the second respondent. The compensation claimed under
various heads was denied.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was
adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A14 and Ext.C1 were marked
on the side of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was
produced by the respondents.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found
negligence on the part of the second respondent-driver of the
offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an
amount of ₹5,25,497/- 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
2025:KER:66588
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 latter, a 19-year-old sticker designer, was
earning ₹18,000/- per month. The Tribunal fixed the notional
income at ₹9,000/- which is quite low and hence the same needs
to be appropriately enhanced. 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
enhancement.
9.1. The claim petitioner relied on Ext.A12 salary
2025:KER:66588
certificate to prove his case regarding income. However, the
Tribunal was not inclined to rely on Ext.A12, as the person who
issued the same was not examined. I do not find any infirmity in
the reasoning given by the Tribunal for not accepting Ext.A12.
However, going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v.
Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd,
(2011) 13 SCC 236 the income of a coolie in the year 2016 is
liable to be fixed at ₹10,500/- per month. Hence, in the facts and
circumstance of the case, the notional income of the claim
petitioner can also be fixed at ₹10,500/-.
Attendant charges
10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
claim petitioner that going by Exts.A8 to A10, the claim petitioner
was hospitalised for a period of 31 days in three different spells.
However, the Tribunal has taken only 30 days and hence
necessary enhancement under this head may also be granted.
10.1. The Tribunal has granted compensation at the
rate of ₹500/- per day for a period of 30 days. As Exts.A8 to A10
2025:KER:66588
show that he was hospitalised for a period of 31 days, the claim
petitioner can be awarded compensation at the rate of ₹500/- for a
period of 31 days.
11. The impugned Award is modified to the
following extent:
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in
No. claimed Awarded appeal
by Tribunal
(in ₹) (in ₹) (in ₹)
1. Loss of earnings 1,80,000/- 72,000/- 84,000/-
(10,500/- x 8)
2. Partial loss of 80,000/- Nil Nil
earnings (No modification)
3. Transport to 15,000/- 8,000/- 8,000/-
hospital (No modification)
4. Extra 10,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/-
nourishment (No modification)
5. Medical expenses 1,95,000/- 1,62,297/- 1,62,297/-
(No modification)
6. Pain and 1,75,000/- 80,000/- 80,000/-
sufferings (No modification)
7. Loss of 1,50,000/- 70,000/- 70,000/-
amenities (No modification)
8. Permanent 2,38,000/- 97,200/- 1,13,400/-
disability (10,500/- x 12 x 18 x
5%)
9. Attendance 5,000/- 15,000/- 15,500/-
charge (500/- x 31)
10. Damage to 2,500/- 1,000/- 1,000/-
clothes etc (No modification)
2025:KER:66588
11. Disfiguration 35,000/- 5,000/- 5,000/-
etc. (No modification)
12. Loss of earning 1,90,000/- Nil Nil
power (No modification)
13. Loss of marriage 1,00,000/- Nil Nil
prospects (No modification)
14. Mental shock 50,000/- Nil Nil
and agony (No modification)
Total 14,12,000/- 5,25,497/- 5,54,197/-
limited to
10,00,000/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹28,700/- (total
compensation = ₹5,54,197/- that is, ₹5,25,497/- granted by the
Tribunal + ₹28,700/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate of
8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization
(excluding the period of 164 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.
2025:KER:66588
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
Jms
